elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This narrative is to document a near miss with a drone that was in a place it should not have been. My first officer saw it and described it as shiny purple; at least 2 feet across; 50 feet above us; and 50 feet to our right. Our position was approximately 1 mile outside the TAFFS FAF on the ILS to 27L at ORD. Altitude was approximately 2500 feet MSL. Encounter was reported to Chicago Approach in real time. We heard them report it to aircraft behind us just before we switched to ORD tower @ TAFFS. Once parked at the gate we discussed what report; if any; would be appropriate and none came to mind. My FO headed for his commuter flight and I took the time to call [Operations] to document the encounter. This report is being filed at his suggestion.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported a near miss with an UAV a mile from TAFFS on the ORD ILS Runway 27L. The encounter was reported to Approach Control and advisories were issued to other aircraft.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The incident occurred during the student's first solo. The weather was clear and the last reported ATIS showed the winds from 040 and 3 kts. It was a supervised solo; so the flight began with both the instructor and the student in the plane. The instructor watched the student make three takeoffs and landings to a stop on Runway XX before getting out of the plane and letting the student continue the flight solo. The takeoffs and landings before the solo portion were fine and within standards. The plan was that the student would perform 3 takeoffs and landings and pick up the instructor on the third landing. The first and second solo takeoffs and landings went smoothly. During the third takeoff; the student applied full power and started to veer left toward the edge of the runway. It appeared as if the student applied the brakes and tried to stop. The airplane then wobbled and skidded off the left side of the runway. It looked like the student regained control after going off the runway and taxied the airplane back closer to the edge of the runway. During this time the instructor; who was over 1;000 feet. down off to the side of the runway; ran toward the airplane; instructed the student to shut down the engine; and inspected the airplane for damage. The airplane looked undamaged. The instructor called Tower to let them know what had happened and requested taxi clearance back to the ramp. The instructor attempted to restart the engine but was not able to. The instructor got back out of the plane and noticed a small puddle of fuel by the nose wheel. A few minutes later ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting) arrived with a mechanic who was able to start the airplane. The instructor taxied the airplane back to the ramp.Having done fewer solo takeoffs and landings could have minimized the chance for this situation occur.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reported that a solo student lost control of the aircraft during takeoff; resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
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; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On arrival to Seattle after the Approach Checklist was completed at 10;000 FT we were slowing to 210 KTS as assigned by ATC when we encountered severe wake turbulence from a preceding aircraft. The aircraft was rolled beyond 30 degrees of bank; with altitude deviation of around 200 FT and airspeed loss of around 20 KTS. The Captain was pilot flying and immediately disengaged autopilot and went to maximum thrust while correcting the airplane's attitude. Control inputs were in my opinion not excessive but necessarily aggressive; and were as smooth as the conditions permitted. The entire event lasted probably about three seconds and we were back to straight and level; out of max thrust and recovering airspeed and altitude. I notified ATC and we were vectored away from the wake. We received a cabin call that our Aft Flight Attendant was injured; advised ATC; got priority handling to the runway nearest our gate; coordinated to have medical personnel standing by at our gate; and made a normal; stable; but expeditious approach; landing; and taxi to park at the gate. Our Forward Flight Attendant called us that she had helped [the injured Flight Attendant] and that [the injured Flight Attendant] said she was able to sit in her jumpseat and perform her duties during landing and parking. [The injured Flight Attendant] was immediately administered aid by medical personnel for having hit her head; shoulder; and hand; for abrasions; contusions; possible concussion; and lacerations suffered from hitting the aft door and the floor at her station. After the medical personnel reached her in the aft galley; passengers were allowed to deplane.




Synopsis: ERJ-170 First Officer reported 'severe' wake vortex encounter on approach to SEA that rolled the aircraft beyond 30 degrees of bank and resulted in injury to the Flight Attendant.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Elevator
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The previous repair to left elevator had failed. Upon inspection of the repair; I found that the repair was not accomplished in accordance with the approved Structural Repair Manual. I found numerous other repairs on the elevator not accomplished in accordance with the approved Structural Repair Manual. I researched and found that the repairs were for water ingress. I found the honeycomb core was not removed; the core was not closed; and the repairs were too close together.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician found that a repair to the elevator of an A319 had not been accomplished in accordance with the approved Structural Repair Manual. He noted several repairs that were not accomplished per specification.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On climbout at approximately 16;300 MSL; we received a TCAS RA for an approaching aircraft. We followed the fly down command bar and exceeded aircraft max speed. We lost approximately 1;200 FT; resolved the RA and returned to climb. The Captain reported seeing a twin engine aircraft pass above by approximately 400 FT. We advised ATC and continued climb.




Synopsis: While responding to a TCAS RA the flight crew of a B757-200 momentarily exceeded Vmo.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just reaching an altitude of FL340 we got a SPOILER FAIL master caution with a spoiler open indication on the EICAS. This amounted to an uncommanded spoiler deployment in flight. We went through the Emergency/Abnormal Checklist declared an emergency started a descent and headed to ZZZZ; the nearest suitable airport. We had them roll the emergency vehicles; and we landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain reports a SPOILER FAIL master caution with a spoiler open indication on the EICAS at FL340. The Emergency Checklist is consulted and flight diverts to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TOA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D TOA
ATC / advisory: Tower TOA
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was cleared to land on Runway 29R and was approaching the north traffic pattern for that runway on a standard 45 degree entry at 1;200 FT descending to pattern altitude (1;100 FT). Tower advised of northbound helicopter traffic 'restricted below 800 FT.' Just as I was beginning my left turn to downwind; I glimpsed the helicopter for just a second as it passed close beneath my left wing. There was no time for evasion. Had I initiated my turn one second earlier; there likely would have been a collision.I reported the incident on Ground Control. The Controller told me that the city's noise abatement personnel; responding t0 a few homeowners who are annoyed by helicopters flying over their homes; have been using letters and 'tickets' to intimidate helicopter pilots into flying at higher altitudes. The Tower simply responds to the helicopter pilots' requests. He also agreed that it may take one or more fatal mid-air collisions to halt this intimidation.I am aware of a number of other similar conflicts with helicopter traffic over the past year that required evasive action on the part of at least one of the pilots.The elimination of altitude separation around the airport is very dangerous and should cease. Intimidation of the pilots by city personnel is a violation of FAR 91.11 and should cease.




Synopsis: A pilot on initial approach to TOA Runway 29R had a near miss at 1;100 FT after a helicopter pilot deviated from his 800 FT altitude constraint because of intimidation by city personnel about neighborhood noise complaints.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on approach at 4;000 FT; we asked the Approach Controller if we were cleared to intercept the course. The Controller then said you are cleared to intercept the approach to GPS 19. We thought he had cleared us for the approach and started a descent to 2;000 FT. Passing 3;300 FT the Controller said; 'You're a little low; but now continue to 2;000 FT.' Because of wind shear off the departure end of Runway 19; we elected to use Runway 10. The event happened because the Controller kept us up high and we didn't want to be unstabilized on the approach. When the Controller gave the clearance to intercept the approach we just misinterpreted it as 'cleared for the approach.' To avoid this in the future I think the controllers could descend us earlier to the initial approach altitude and at the first sign of wind shear on that particular runway send us to a different runway.


Second narrative: ATC clearance was not quite clear and precise; nor did we question or clarify our clearance. I'm going to question any clearance that is not clear.


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew descended from assigned altitude after misinterpreting ATC instruction; 'Cleared to intercept the approach' as clearance for the approach.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 1.5
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C MDW
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared ILS 4R Approach; 170 knots till CITGO. Aircraft joined final ahead of us close; from the north; which is unusual. They checked-in with Tower 'back with you.' I saw us closing on this traffic ahead on final and started slowing prior to CITGO; at the same time Tower called '(Call sign)'; we responded; then Tower called again as if they didn't hear our reply. We were instructed to go around and turn left; we complied. Vectors back around for another ILS; complying with ATC assigned speed; re-cleared approach behind [another aircraft]. Tower told us to slow to final due to traffic ahead; we were already fully configured and decelerating through 10 knots above target speed. We landed on 4R. Along with our taxi instructions we were instructed to call Approach Control for a possible Pilot Deviation. I called [the] Manager Air Traffic Systems; and he called on our behalf.We complied with all ATC instructions; and I believe ATC did not provide proper spacing; or the other aircraft did not comply on our first approach attempt. The second approach; ATC was again concerned with spacing.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an aircraft turning in front of their aircraft on final into MDW. Pilot was then called by ATC and told to go around. Vectored back to final and landed without incident. Crew was advised to call ATC for possible pilot deviation.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In accordance with the Pacific Chart Supplement aircraft entering or exiting HCF airspace should file a named fix/waypoint along the HCF/ZOA boundary. The reason for this requirement is simple. HCF does not have the capability to display an aircraft's route of flight to ensure lateral separation is maintained between aircraft transitioning from radar to oceanic non-radar. HCF airspace was designed with many fixes along the boundary to ensure oceanic non-radar lateral separation will exist if aircraft actually fly over them. However; aircraft routinely file and are cleared via LAT/LONG's that cannot be determined by the controller without getting up and relying on a grease pencil/dry erase marker to plot route on an overhead plexi-glass display. Another example of non-compliance with these procedures occurred. Aircraft X was inbound over SAYTO DCT SCOON at FL390. Aircraft Y was cleared off of HNL DCT FITES DCT 2100N/15000W climbing to FL390. The boundary estimate for Aircraft X was XX00Z and the boundary estimate for Aircraft Y was XX+04Z. Needless to say there wasn't any form of separation ensured between these 2 aircraft. Aircraft Y needed to file over a boundary fix (FAPIS) to ensure lateral separation would exist at the boundary between these 2 aircraft.All aircraft entering or exiting HCF airspace must file a named fix or waypoint along the HCF boundary.




Synopsis: HCF Controller reports of problems associated with flying from a radar environment into a non-radar environment and not being able to display routes to look for issues.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Strong smell of melted wax that began in the descent of our flight. Flight Attendant 2 expressed she had intense pressure in her ears and a headache and said it was better once we landed. I asked if she wanted to go to urgent care and and she declined. Pilots said it could just be the atmosphere. No visible smoke in the cabin. Other flight attendants I spoke to about this event have reported the same smell on the A319. This was my first time encountering the smell on this type of aircraft and I should mention I was on this same tail number for 3 flights total that day and only smelled the reported information above on the final flight of the day.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant crew reported strong odor on descent for landing.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Outflow Valve
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise at FL280 we lost Auto Cabin Pressurization.  As the cabin altitude began to climb through 9;500 feet; we began an emergency descent to 10;000 feet where we complied with ECAM and Emergency Procedures.  We continued to our destination where we completed a normal approach and landing.


Second narrative: We advised ATC and started an emergency descent and then descended to 8;000 feet MSL.  Consulted with Maintenance Control and Dispatch.  Selected Pressurization System 2 and regained control of pressurization.


Synopsis: An A320 Flight Crew performed an emergency descent after noting the cabin altitude approaching 10;000 feet.  When level; they performed appropriate ECAMs and checklists; switched to an alternate system and continued to their destination.