elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
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: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On downwind to Denver at 11;000 ft. Told VFR traffic circling over downtown Denver at 9;500 ft. Not in sight. Instructed to descend to ten thousand. Traffic not in sight. Frequency busy. Told to turn left to base leg; away from traffic; and received TCAS CLIMB alert. Clear of traffic quickly; informed controller; cleared for a visual to 35L. High and tight. Close to unstabilized approach but handled well by FO and landed.


Second narrative: I had to go to about 1100 feet per minute up to get out of the red band. I estimate we climbed up to about 11000 after being almost down to 10000. The Captain alerted ATC but they were not very responsive. There were communication issues with stepping on each other (between ATC and the Captain) that caused a delayed visual clearance to 35L. We ended up pushing the stabilized approach criteria due to the late approach clearance and an assigned heading that sent us directly to the airport but I do not believe we were out of compliance. We ended up in this situation because we had to climb due to the TCAS event.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported responding to a TCAS RA on approach to DEN.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 13;000 FT EICAS reported an ANTI-ICE DUCT MASTER WARNING and MASTER CAUTION. Checklist actions required securing the anti-ice system and exiting icing conditions. Once secured; the messages extinguished. Light rime was accreting and lower altitudes promptly provided by ARTCC did not provide an exit from the conditions. An emergency was then declared with ARTCC and the flight proceeded direct to a nearby airport without incident; remaining in icing conditions until landing. Due to current meteorological conditions and aircraft position and configuration; the chosen airport was the most suitable airport to land.


Second narrative: When on arrival while descending through 13;000 we entered into IMC and ICING conditions. A few minutes after turning our anti-ice equipment we received the 'ANTI ICE MASTER WARNING/CAUTION' and AURAL WARNING 'ANTI-ICE DUCT'. We turned off the anti-icing equipment and ran the QRH which instructed us to turn the system off and leave icing conditions IMMEDIATELY. We notified ATC that we needed to descend to 8;000 FT instead of 9;000 to exit icing conditions because our anti-ice equipment had failed; figuring it would be warm enough at that altitude. We experienced a temperature inversion and ATC was unable to give us lower when we asked for even lower to exit icing conditions. We decided to declare an emergency to get priority handling to a lower altitude and out of icing conditions. We informed ATC of our MASTER WARNING and lack of anti-icing equipment available. We landed safely and there was no additional action taken.


Synopsis: An ANTI-ICE MASTER WARNING msg in icing conditions led a regional jet crew to declare an emergency in order to exit icing conditions when ATC was unable to approve their requested altitude.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT; Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After takeoff from CLT; I waited an unusually long time for tower controller to switch over to departure control. Tower was busy speaking with other aircraft making it impossible to query whether I should contact departure control. I became concerned about safety of my flight and contacted departure control myself without direction from tower. All was well for several minutes and then departure control informed me that it is CLT procedure to keep departing aircraft on tower frequency longer than normal and I should plan accordingly. I apologized; but could not find any guidance for this procedure. Not flying into CLT often; I was unaware of this procedure and tower speaking with other aircraft at length did not allow me the opportunity to query. Should be a note listed in ops procedures about CLT departure procedures.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported CLT Tower took an unusually long time to switch them to Departure; so he switched himself. Departure informed him it is standard for CLT Tower to keep aircraft on frequency longer than usual.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Pilatus Undifferentiated
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent from FL240; cleared to FL190; passing FL220 recieved a Caution for ECS fail. Cabin Alt rising; I asked ATC for lower; cleared to 14;000 [feet].  Once cabin reached 10;000 ft.; master warning for cabin alt. I donned O2 mask and continued descent. Approaching 14;000 [feet]; I asked for lower and was told 'I have your request' then stated due to cabin depressurization I WAS descending to 10;000 ft.  ATC aknowledged.  Upon reaching 10;000 ft.; ATC asked if I was in need of assistance. Replied 'no'. I cycled ECS power and system returned to normal.




Synopsis: Pilatus pilot reported descending to a lower altitude after experiencing loss of cabin pressure.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AVP.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D AVP
ATC / advisory: Tower AVP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on visual approach to AVP and self-vectoring towards the FAF for Runway 22 we descended to 3;000 feet and began a downwind to base turn. During the turn the EGPWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System) sensed an obstacle tower near the COSBY INT ahead that was inside 500 feet of our altitude and gave us a single and momentary 'TERRAIN' warning. Both the FO (First Officer) and I reached for the thrust levers and looked outside; we both agreed the warning was temporary and we were not near terrain and decided to continue.EGPWS sensing an obstacle through our turning path. Readied for evasive maneuver; confirmed location and verified no terrain. Could have added 100 to 200 feet to altitude to avoid the warning.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported receiving an EGPWS obstacle warning on a visual approach to AVP.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CNO.Tower, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D CNO
ATC / advisory: Tower CNO
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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 Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was providing On the Job Training on our combined Local South position. We were active Runway 8R and Runway 8L; advertising visual approaches (all of our instrument approaches go to RY26R; therefore we run a lot of opposite direction practice/actual approaches.) We are not active 8s often; so when we are our pilots are less familiar and it's more difficult for us controllers as well. My trainee had departed Aircraft X; requesting straight out and had moved on to working other aircraft.I saw Aircraft Y inbound; opposite direction from the east with 'VL' in his data block; indicating a visual approach to the left runway; I assumed it was for Runway 8L. I told my developmental to do something with the Aircraft X; he did not hear me. I told him again and the closure rate was so fast by the time he could issue instructions; I had to step in and issue a traffic alert and turned the Aircraft X to the south; expecting Aircraft Y to turn northwest. A visual approach to Runway 8L would normally be issued to circle north of the field for a left downwind entry. SoCal approach had apparently also issued the south turn to Aircraft Y but it was hard to tell as FUSION showed the targets all over the place. The aircraft missed by about a mile and maybe 100 feet. When we established communication with Aircraft Y he told us that SCT had set him up for a visual approach to Runway 26L; which we knew nothing about; there had been no coordination. We were unable to communicate with the Aircraft X after traffic had passed and he appeared to climb into the ONT Class C eastbound. I don't know what could happen to better facilitate the approach issue with SCT; but as far as the aircraft proximity; I should step in earlier next time. I like to give my developmental the opportunity to fix problems; even if I have to prompt them. However with that closure rate I should have just keyed up and fixed it myself early enough that it was not a safety issue.




Synopsis: CNO Tower Local Instructor reported seeing a conflict and hoping the developmental would fix the problem. Instructor prompted developmental to no avail. Arrival and departure had a loss of separation due to timing and lack of communication from overlying TRACON.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out of FL380 on a passenger flight a bang was heard accompanied by a slight vibration and [the left] ITT went into 900 C range. Engine Number 1 gauges indicated an engine failure. We proceeded to shutdown engine via Emergency Checklist procedures. Passengers were informed twice of situation and what to expect. Performed a One Engine Inoperative Approach and Landing after declaring an emergency. Returned to departure airport. Passengers remained calm. Landing uneventful and post flight found N1 fan would not rotate.




Synopsis: The flight crew of an HS-125 performed an inflight shutdown; declared and emergency and returned to their departure airport following receipt of a 'bang'; vibration and high ITT from the left engine.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxi out; change of runway and ATC reroute... sent reroute and takeoff data to dispatch. Received takeoff data promptly. Inadvertently took off before new release came across ACARS printer. Minimum fuel declared to ATC landed with 5800 lbs at [destination].


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: A320 flight crew failed to obtain a new/amended release and had to declare minimum fuel for landing.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SDF.Tower, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Other Charter
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SDF
ATC / advisory: Tower SDF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After being vectored over the airport and sequenced behind multiple heavy jets; I was cleared for the visual approach to 35R at SDF. The last vector to final was a shallow intercept angle and I mistakenly identified a warehouse as being part of the [company] ramp. This led to partial spatial disorientation which allowed me to believe I was 1.5 miles from the airport instead of the actual 2.5 miles. The tower controller gave me an altitude alert and the altimeter setting; which prompted me to add power and reevaluate my location to the airport. I then reset my glide path and had a stabilized approach to landing with no further issues. I believe a contributing factor was the lengthy duty day that also included a stop at SDF about 10 hours earlier. Additionally;  I was vectored over the airport and looked down at the airport environment to identify the [company] ramps and the FBO ramp where I would be offloading/loading freight; which added to my belief that I had correctly identified part of the airport environment. To prevent this from happening; I could have switched my CDI to follow the ILS (which I had loaded). Also; since I was cleared for the visual I could have turned more to intercept final further out instead of following a shallow intercept angle.




Synopsis: Pilot reported losing spatial orientation which led the reporter to think they were closer to the airport than they actually were.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Pre-departure weight and balance was within limits. Max aft CG index limit was -2.0 and aircraft CG index was -1.0. Tail stand was removed normally. Flight was normal and uneventful until landing touchdown. Touchdown was normal attitude with both main landing gear touching down first; then instead of the nose gear making ground contact the aircraft pitched up unexpected during the roll out at approximately 80 kts. I immediately took the flight controls and applied braking and the aircraft pitched down and the nose gear made ground contact and directional control was reestablished. The runway was exited normally and the aircraft was taxied to the gate and passengers were deplaned. A post flight inspection was performed and slight damage was discovered indicating a tail strike had occurred. I contacted Maintenance Control and entered the discrepancy in the aircraft logbook. I then contacted the Chief Pilot and informed him of the incident.I have replayed this incident over in my mind and have concluded that even though the aircraft was within the CG index limits; best practice in the future would be to do whatever it takes to keep the aircraft CG index as far away from the aft limit as possible when boarding and loading the aircraft.




Synopsis: SF 340B Captain reported a tail strike occurred during landing despite the aircraft having proper CG.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [This particular] Aircraft had installed a new 110V Boeing power plug in the cockpit. The receptacle is not worn at all. Flight Operations has adopted this as a power source to charge iPads while in the cockpit per Flight Operation Manual (FOM). The Boeing power plug is not a standard 110V household outlet. The receptacle holes are curved; not straight as for household 110V spades. This outlet is not meant for 110V household spades; and in fact; when the outlet is new and not worn; you cannot get an 110V straight spade plug into the Boeing curved outlet; as in our case with this plane. So; you are unable to charge the iPad in flight using the cockpit plug. Maintenance signed this off as ops checks ok; which was impossible; as the iPad charger physically would not fit in the Boeing plug. The only way an iPad charger with straight spades will fit in the Boeing plug is if the receptacle is worn; only then can you force it into the holes. If you have a new receptacle; it will not fit. I am extremely concerned because this FOM policy of using the iPads seems to not be thought out or well executed. In particular; it is now optional to not print our flight papers and only use iPads. The required charge for an iPad before leaving on a multi-day trip is 67%. This assumes you can charge it in flight; which now may not be possible. On the longest domestic flight 67% charge is not enough to constantly have the display on; and have the flight plan available for a 6 1/2 hour flight.Concerns:1. There is no provision to secure the iPads in the cockpit during turbulence; in the event there is turbulence; you would have to put it away; and then no access to flight plans if you did not print it out. FOD flying around the cockpit is not safe.2. If you did not print the flight planes; and you cannot charge the iPad due to incompatibility with the Boeing plug; you will not have the flight plan available for route of flight or fuel planning; possibly leading to a FAA violation.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports that the 110 volt outlets being installed in his aircraft for iPad charging do not accept a standard spad type plug.