elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202009
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operating under: Part 121
Aircraft component: Data Transmission and Automatic Calling
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: En route Data Link with ATC: This has been reported on in the past and I have yet to see any information that we or the industry are addressing the issue. Every single Pilot I work with also sees the confusion; so I'm not sure if others are reporting or not.  My guess is not; as Pilots don't like to report issues especially when they think their ideas are unfortunately ignored. The difficulty again is that Boeing decided to use one particular 'chime' for the audio alert of an ATC message. Yes there is the small dot on the center screen and an alert message; but the chime is identical to what is expected with any ACARS notification. Almost every flight when having requested ACARS data and expecting a chime soon; but then receiving an ATC message instead; it is extremely easy to overlook the small ATC dot.  If the Pilot is busy with another task they are likely to come back to the perceived requested data when time allows; therefore potentially missing an ATC message.Most often it's merely a frequency change; but more and more frequently it is a routing clearance or a change of altitude.  Both of those last two messages could be flight critical if not responded to and acted upon relatively soon. The times I have been running ATIS; Gate; Landing Data and have gotten an ATC chime in the process is numerous. Yes we are professional Pilots and do our best; but it is ludicrous that a multi-million dollar aircraft in the year of 2020 has such an archaic notification system that will only be used more in the future. Let's take a case in point. Two professional Pilots with plenty of experience but a communication deficiency allow an aircraft to be destroyed along with the lives of XXX people. Here Boeing took the easy route of using one 'horn' for two vastly distinct purposes. Yes professional Pilots should not have had an issue here identifying the proper response but they DID. It took until March of 2011 for the FAA to act and still allowed Operators another three years to comply with the new 'light solution'.All parties need to understand that there is an immediate issue that needs to be addressed and get past corporate/government typical items that clog up a solution getting out in under a half a decade. Another audible way of notification when receiving an ATC message must be found whether it is a different chime tone or a spritz of water to the face. I know there is a solution out there.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported that the 'chime' for the audio alert of an ATC message in Boeing aircraft; is identical to the ACARS notification.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HWD.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D HWD
ATC / advisory: Tower HWD
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying VFR from San Carlos Airport south of the Dumbarton Bridge; I was navigating via a TAC SFO area current chart while transitioning from easterly to a southerly heading. I selected the Tower freq of Hayward to have awareness of any possible airplanes in my vicinity. While listening on the Tower freq; I got a blind call out from the tower on my position in relation to Hayward airport; so I responded and was advised I had entered class D without permission and I Idented my position as asked by the Tower and exited southward along the waterline. I had established two way communications with them; and they asked me to file a pilot deviation form via a phone call in which I did after the flight review I was conducting. I was constantly aware of my position; and according to my navigation; did not enter the airspace in question; but am able to apply my situation to all future students and pilots requiring a flight review in the future.




Synopsis: After departing SQL; a C172 instructor pilot was informed by HWD Tower that he had entered HWD Class D without a clearance. The Instructor was using a SFO TAC for navigation and disputes the claim that he was in Class D.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Pilot Monitoring.  On takeoff roll; Captain's airspeed indicator went to zero at approximately 100 knots.  First Officer's airspeed agreed with standby airspeed indicator.  Takeoff was continued.  ATC was advised that we were unable RNAV and were given a heading.  At this point the First Officer lost his airspeed as well with the standby airspeed consistent with phase of flight.  An emergency was declared and ATC was informed we were returning.  Shortly after our decision to return; the First Officer's airspeed came back and the QRH for CADC failure was accomplished.  CADC selector was placed to; 'Both on 2'; and indications returned to normal.  An overweight landing was accomplished.  Landing was at a normal descent rate. Weight at touchdown was approximately 135;500 pounds.  Safety responders check aircraft and brakes and the aircraft was taxied back to the gate.




Synopsis: MD-82 Captain experiences loss of his airspeed indication at 100 knots during takeoff and with the First Officer flying and the takeoff is continued. After becoming airborne the First Officers airspeed also fails and an emergency is declared. The First Officer's airspeed returns to normal shortly thereafter and the Captain's airspeed indicator is placed on number two CADC and the flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Gear-up landing on takeoff; I noticed that my airspeed indicator was inoperative. I later learned that the pitot tube was bent off-axis. I continued my flight since I'd had similar situations with a previous aircraft due to mud-daubers. I have 125 hours and more than 150 landings in type; but the MAC 145 is a conventional gear aircraft with fairly high wing loading and sinks quickly at slow speeds. I also wheel-land the aircraft and have to pay close attention to airspeed and attitude on short final. That caused me to over-fixate on speed and attitude on my approach to the extent that I neglected to extend the gear. I also ignored the gear-down panel lights. The wheel landing was made with some throttle; so the gear-up warning horn didn't sound. The landing would have been a perfect greaser. Except for the prop; there was very little exterior damage. The aircraft settled onto the ground very slowly; straight and level; and skidded straight down the centerline balanced on the tailwheel; air inlet box and exhaust pipes. The air scoop and center belly panels were the only damaged sheet metal components. The wings never touched the ground; there was no damage to the runway and I didn't hit anything. There were no injuries. Several neighbors helped lift the plane. I dropped and locked the gear; and we pushed it back to my hangar. Subsequent inspection with my A&P found no damage to structural elements under the belly-skins. Corrective actions include closer attention to my checklist should the airspeed indicator situation occur again and slowing my touchdown speed to arm the gear-up horn.




Synopsis: A distracted MAC 145 pilot landed gear up blaming the lack of airspeed indication and ignored the gear down lights but also did not have a gear horn warning because of high throttle setting.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Tower, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was in position on runway 8; Aircraft Y was in position on runway 9L. I told another aircraft to cross runway 9L at D hold short of runway 8. Then I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff on runway 8. Aircraft Y read cleared for takeoff runway 8. I stepped on Aircraft X; when telling another aircraft to hold short of taxiway A. Aircraft X called again saying they were cleared for takeoff on Runway 8 and I said affirmative. Then looked at 9L and saw Aircraft Y already rolling and almost airborne. Once he was airborne; I provided the visual separation and told him to fly runway heading and then I turned Aircraft X to 050 heading. I should have listened for the bad readback.


Second narrative: We were issued line up and wait runway 9L. Then; we were given 'Aircraft Y heading 050 cleared for takeoff 9L'. During upwind climb we received 'fly runway heading'. After some thought; having a 050 heading changed just after takeoff to runway heading; we found it odd. We thought this could possibly be a misheard clearance; or a wrong clearance given by tower. Later discussing the event we determined it was odd to receive 050 heading from runway 9L followed by a quick change to runway heading. Possible misheard clearance or tower issued the wrong clearance.Listen closer and confirm instructions.


Synopsis: PHL Tower Controller and a First Officer involved reported the First Officer took another aircraft's takeoff clearance.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Behind a departing B757 we were given the clearance 'Line up and wait' on Runway 01R at SFO. I started my clock for wake turbulence avoidance as the B757 started its takeoff roll and taxied onto the runway and to the 'takeoff power point' further down the runway at what I judged to be the appropriate speed to arrive at that takeoff power point at the same time that enough time would have expired to have ensured safe separation between us and the departed B757; to also coincide with an expected takeoff clearance at that time. Instead; the SFO Tower cleared us for takeoff much sooner than that; and indicated with that takeoff clearance that there would be traffic holding in position on 28L. We continued at the same speed to the takeoff power point on 01R and I handed the aircraft to the First Officer for takeoff. Halfway through the takeoff roll I noticed in my scan for the first time an aircraft on final for 28R. I felt an abort at that time would have placed us right in its path and so I decided to continue the takeoff; which seemed to be the right choice because it looked to me like the aircraft would touch down after we would have crossed its runway; just moments later SFO Tower directed that aircraft to go-around. I feel that SFO Tower must have expected us to takeoff without delay; thereby allowing more room for the landing aircraft; even though we had not yet reached the takeoff power point; and ignoring the required separation between us and the departed B757. There was no mention of the landing aircraft when we were given the takeoff clearance; the only mention was that of the aircraft waiting in position on 28L. The word 'immediate' was also not used in the takeoff clearance. SFO Tower should not try to rush or squeeze departures between arrivals while ignoring wake turbulence separation standards. I as Captain should have intervened when the First Officer accepted the early takeoff clearance with a demand for more time between us and the departing B757; rather than just taking the time to taxi to the takeoff point without any mention to the Tower. Again I was not aware of the landing aircraft until halfway down the takeoff roll.




Synopsis: Air Carrier departing Runway 1R at SFO elected to slow the takeoff due to 'wake separation' based upon only time; the delay caused a go-around on Runway 28.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Arriving EWR on the PHLBO Arrival; NY Approach Control alerted us to traffic that was not displayed on TCAS. In the time it takes you to read this sentence; Approach gave us a heading; we saw the traffic right in front of us just as it displayed on TCAS; and we got a TCAS RA to 'climb.' First Officer accomplished the RA perfectly as we climbed above the traffic. The intruder appeared to be a Cirrus in a climb between the points DYLIN and MERSR on the PHLBO Arrival. We were descending through about 7;000 FT when the incident occurred. When the intruder did appear on the TCAS it was about 2 miles ahead and 300 FT below; in a climb. I estimate we were 500 FT above when we crossed. I'm sure we were close enough for him to hear us; as we filled his windshield just above him.  The profile was required and an uneventful landing followed. As we all know; not all traffic gets displayed on TCAS all the time. First Officer and I were scanning outside as we should while the aircraft was following the RNAV Arrival. We did not spot the intruder because it was climbing in the same direction we were flying; so the smallest cross section was displayed to us. We were looking at its tail. NY Approach must have known about him; but did not alert us until we were close. They probably should have vectored us off the arrival sooner than they did. Keep alert; and scan outside; especially below 10;000 FT.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reports a TCAS RA descending through 7;000 FT on the PHLBO arrival to EWR. An RA climb is initiated to avoid a Cirrus climbing along the arrival route.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk (A4)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon landing; I blew both main tires. A travel pod located on the centerline station came off the aircraft at the time of touchdown. I was able to taxi clear of the runway after landing.




Synopsis: A-4 pilot reported the results of an apparent hard landing.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
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: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Due to smoke in cockpit at cruise we requested priority handling; ran smoke in cockpit checklist and memory items; landed safely. After landing I determined we were not in a fully developed active fire; so elected with the escort of the ARFF vehicles to head to a gate; deplaned without incident; fully shut down the plane.  Potential fire from avionics or pack system.Suggestions - Improve the o2 mask microphone and reduce o2 noise in the system so that it is easier to hear your crew and ATC.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported diverting to a nearby airport due to smoke in the cockpit. The reporter also reported difficulty in communicating with the oxygen mask on.
Date: 202105
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While climbing out of Denver airspace at 36;000 feet on our way to 37;000 feet we encountered a strong mountain wave. I had just requested 39;000 feet with Denver center when the incident occurred. The Controller passed me on to a different frequency and at that time we encountered the mountain wave. Almost immediately the airspeed increased into the high-speed Q and our vertical speed increased to over 8000 ft./min. We were able to level off at 37;800 feet and contact the new Controller. Upon contact I notified the Controller that we were above are signed altitude due to a mountain wave. We descended back down to 37;000 feet and then we were cleared to 39;000 feet.


Second narrative: We were level FL360. The aircraft dipped below cruise altitude causing VMO exceedance. I disengaged autopilot to return to normal parameters when the upside of the mountain wave climbed us to FL368 before I was able to descend back to FL360. First Officer noted a climb rate approaching 8;000 FPM. ATC was notified and no traffic conflicts were present.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported encountering a strong mountain wave resulting in an exceedance of Vmo/Mmo and an altitude deviation.