elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: 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: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Aircraft on ATL's south runways caused Tower to divert several aircraft waiting to take off to the north side including us. Tower made several calls for aircraft to 'be ready' as he was trying to launch many in a short amount of time. My best recollection is we had cleaned up from flaps 5 to 1; and were approaching flaps 1 min maneuver speed when we hit several seconds of heavy moderate rolling motion; requiring almost full throw of the ailerons to maintain wings level attitude as we hit the wake from an Airbus that took off ahead of us. When I got to my hotel room; I looked up the event reporting requirements and realized we didn't report the incident to ATC. I did; however; make a PA above 10;000 feet to explain to the passengers what happened and why; and got positive feedback from the flight attendants who said the event concerned the customers.

Callback: Reporter stated ATL seems to be reducing separation resulting in more frequent wake encounters.



Synopsis: B737 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence departing ATL in trail of an Airbus.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi; Parked; Cruise; Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My other FA (Flight Attendant) informed me that 4B was giving her some attitude when she had asked her for compliance. 4B was on a phone call and the FA had asked her to finish up her phone conversation as the Main Cabin Door was being closed for departure. I agreed to tag team and verify she had ended her call. I walked by and she hid her phone down by her side; so I couldn't tell one way or another. I told the other FA I would check during final compliance. After our safety demo; I walked by and she was very clearly texting. I asked her to put her phone into airplane mode. I didn't want to appear that I was singling her out and hovering; so I walked away and checked on my way back up front. Again; she was very engrossed in her texting. She was sending and receiving messages and there was no airplane mode icon on her phone. It showed she had service. Again; I told her that her phone needed to be in airplane mode. I told her that we needed her to comply and put her phone in airplane mode now. She looked up at me; visibly annoyed; turned her phone away and said 'Yeah.' When I was standing there; she made no attempt to turn her phone into airplane mode. I didn't have a visual of the phone anymore but to my knowledge; she never did. Enroute; we caught a couple glances of her cell phone; every time it was not in airplane mode. It wasn't as if she was unaware; she actively chose not to comply.This passenger was a [premium frequent flyer]. Normally; passengers that are that non-compliant are asked to comply or to be removed from flight; however; neither one of us FAs felt the company would support removing a [premium member] over a compliance issue. We also feared we would have gotten in trouble if we had tried. I struggled with it because this passenger was purposely not complying and in an emergency; I don't know that I could count on her to follow crew member instructions.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported being unwilling to report passenger misconduct due to the possibility of company retribution.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken

Narrative: I was the pilot flying as we departed runway 31 at LGA. After departure we were assigned a heading of 340. While established on the 340 assigned heading we were busy inside the airplane as we were retracting flaps; etc while flying the profile. As we climbed through approximately 2000' MSL I noticed something perceived to be large and dark colored outside the aircraft in my peripheral. I didn't get a good look at the object as I turned my focus toward it as it was in close proximity to us and we were accelerating towards 200 KIAS. The object passed directly overhead us within approximately 150' by my estimates. Due to the brief amount of time the object was visible I was unable to positively identify what it was. In my estimation it was neither a bird nor a balloon as its shape seemed to have defined edges and its color was dark; possibly black. The size of the object was comparable to that of a large bird. I asked the first officer if he had seen the object and he replied 'no' as he was heads down performing his duties. After further consideration and at a safe altitude and low workload; I reported a 'large; dark object approximately 2000' on the 340 degree heading' as to warn other departing aircraft of a potential hazard on climb out. I was careful not to label it a drone as I couldn't positively identify the object; but it wouldn't surprise me if that's what it was. I received a number for the TRACON and contacted them upon arrival in [our destination]. I subsequently talked to an FBI agent about the incident. While talking to each I emphasized I couldn't positively identify the object as a drone but that it was a possibility.




Synopsis: CRJ900 Captain departing LGA Runway 31 reports sighting an object; possibly a drone; at 2000 feet. The object passes about 150 feet above the CRJ but no evasive action is taken; though ATC is informed.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Enroute
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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had just came back from break when my supervisor asked me to open up a sector from a combined sector as both were at an increased volume. As I sat down I advised the Radar controller and Handoff position that they could call back when they are ready to have the sectors split. When it is busy I like to leave that decision up to the team who is working the traffic currently so as not to distract them with uncontrolled datablocks. As I sat; plugged into the non-open sector; I heard them both question out loud with confusion as to where Air Carrier XX was. The Radar controller asked for his location. I was scanning the scope too and found Air Carrier XX just Southwest of [fix] so I rose from my seat and pointed on the scope.That's when I heard the Radar Controller say no; he said he's at 28000 feet to which theirs was at 27000 feet stopped for traffic. That's when the Handoff Controller jumped and pointed at a limited datablock at 28000 feet just east of our Air Carrier XX. The Radar Controller immediately changed his [callsign] to Air Carrier XY and the handoff was hurrying to get a flight plan for the other Air Carrier XX at 28000 feet. At this time I noticed that splitting the sector in this time of confusion was probably not the best idea so I asked the sector team if they wanted me to track. They said yes so I sat down; the Radar Controller stood to my side; and we worked like this until things calmed down within 20-30 minutes. Later we were told a controller in another area deleted an active flight plan in order to depart the other flight plan.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: ZID Center Controllers reported a Handoff Assist controller removed an active flight plan from the computer causing the radar data tag to drop off their radar display.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLM.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: CTAF CLM
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I was] cleared for the Visual Runway 08. CTAF according to data on GPS was 123.00. [I was] broadcasting in the blind on CAVU day. Short final [I] observed float plane crossing active runway. I immediately [conducted] go-around to left downwind pattern altitude. Floatplane pilot contacted me on 123.00 and said current active CTAF was 122.975. Reviewed in Foreflight app on iPad and confirmed. Jeppesen chart error apparently. My error for not cross checking. No harm no foul as detection of aircraft on runway in plenty of time for evasive action.

Callback: Reporter indicated that his GPS is a G430 and that the Nav data is supplied by Jeppesen.



Synopsis: BE36 pilot discovers an error in the CTAF provided by his G430 during approach to CLM. Frequency shown is 123.0 while current frequency is 122.975. A go-around results due to miscommunication with an aircraft on the runway.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.Tower, PA
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Aircraft X was instructed to taxi and was issued communications transfer to ramp control. Aircraft X was observed entering the ramp control via taxiway which was neither coordinated nor authorized by ATC personnel.Two Memorandums are located within the red read and initial binder. They are Quality Assurance Alert Bulletins which repeatedly use the phrase 'POSITIVE CONTROL' in bold lettering.  Please explain how aircraft not following ATC instructions could ever be considered positive control? Whether it be by their own initiative or by ramp controller prerogative does not matter. Not following ATC instructions and this facility always justifying it as an acceptable practice is UNSAFE.The current Ramp LOA (Letter of Agreement) is unsafe. IT IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED by most of the workforce to include air traffic controllers; pilots; and ramp operators. If the LOA is not being followed it is a safety issue that is not being addressed.Recommend that feedback is solicited and used as a determining factor in LOA development. Controllers should not be briefed on a new LOA without being afforded the opportunity to provide feedback on proposed changes to operating procedures.Recommend that LOA's are not developed which IMPLY increased landline coordination is feasible. The Local Control controller work load should never be increased to improve ramp efficiency. This LOA is driven by efficiency and not safety. Safety should be the priority; and increasing coordination at an already busy position is not safe.If the Local Control position already has to talk to every plane landing; as well as make a recorded landline communication for 50% of the departure aircraft; should the LOA imply that they now have time to make a ramp control landline communication for 30% of the arrival aircraft?




Synopsis: PHL Tower Controller states his facility Letter of Agreement with Ramp Control is not being complied with and is unsafe.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Taxi
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: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This event occurred while being vectored for a visual approach to runway XY in ZZZ. The First Officer (FO) was Pilot Flying and I was Pilot Monitoring. ATC had given us a heading to fly and a clearance to descend to 3000 ft. 3000 was entered into the altitude preselect; was confirmed by both pilots and a descent was initiated. At about this time we were also instructed to maintain 180 kts. Sometime later; I noticed that our speed had begun to bleed off considerably; approximately 20 kts and still decaying. I immediately grabbed the thrust levers and increased power attempting to regain our airspeed. At about this time; it was noticed that the preselected altitude had never captured and that the Flight Mode Annunciator had entered into pitch mode at some point. It became apparent that after the aircraft had started its' descent to the preselected ASEL mode had changed to pitch and was never noticed by either pilot. Instead of descending the aircraft had entered a climb at some point and this was not noticed until an appreciable amount of airspeed decay had occurred. At the time that this event was noticed the aircraft was approximately 900 ft. above its' assigned altitude. Shortly after corrective action was begun; ATC queried us about our climbing instead of descending. We replied that we were reversing the climb. The aircraft returned to its' assigned altitude and a visual approach was completed without any further issues.Large decrease in indicated airspeed. The event occurred; because neither pilot noticed the Flight Mode Annunciator (FMA) entering pitch mode. Thrust was added and then the climb was reversed in order to descend back to our assigned altitude.Both pilots need to reaffirm that their primary duty is to fly and monitor the aircraft at all times. Starting with the basics of Heading; Altitude; Airspeed and Performance.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported while descending the preselected altitude was never captured and the aircraft started climbing.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
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: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the PM in the right seat. On short final on ILS 4R into BOS. The ceilings were at 1;200 feet. We had the runway in sight. We were over the extended threshold as the PF was aiming for the 1;000 feet runway markers when we got a EGPWS 'glide slope' at approximately 50 feet. I noticed at that time that the PAPI were indicating 3 red; at that time the PF said correcting and started to pitch up. Then we received 2 more 'glide slope' EGPWS. We continued to land the aircraft. We were over the runway. His descent below glide slope was not intentional.Suggestions - Be more vigilant in calling out the glide slope and PAPI deviations even in VMC conditions.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an unstabilized approach during final to BOS airport resulting in a CFTT event requiring crew pitch up correction.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Navigating JAIKE3 to TEB. At JAIKE the FMS lost programming and began navigating back to JAIKE. Advised ATC that we lost 'our box' and needed a vector towards WACKI while we re-program it. ATC instructed a five degree left turn rejoin the arrival. The First Officer's first attempt to re-program the FMS failed and I instructed him to '99 it' and start over - which he did. During the process we had no way of knowing our position and I knew that we needed to cross WACKI at 11000 feet; so after a minute I began an early descent from 13000 to 11000 feet. ATC noticed that we had begun our descent prior to ILENE and instructed us to level at 12000 feet and 250 kts. The crossing restriction at ILENE is 13000 feet. By that time the FO (First Officer) has successfully reprogramed the FMS and we continued the arrival as per the STAR.JAIKE is depicted in bold lettering on the Jeppesen chart and WACKI has an enhanced altitude box with the altitude in it. ILENE was not noticed during the distraction of re-programming the FMS. Also ILENE is a redundant fix identical to JAIKE with a crossing altitude of 13000 feet. When briefing the STAR; JAIKE at 13000 feet was noted and the arrival scanned ahead for the next crossing restriction which was WACKI at 11000 feet. Most arrivals do not have duplicate crossing fixes which led to missing the second fix.Perhaps depicting the route segment of the STAR differently would help in better situational awareness; such as depicting the 'segment' as an absolute value of 13000 feet; instead of duplication of two waypoints on either end of the segment.




Synopsis: LR-55 Captain reported deviating from cleared track and altitude on arrival to TEB when their FMS lost programming.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During calm winds on takeoff from Runway 22 in EWR; wake turbulence was encountered on takeoff. The aircraft was safely flown to approximately 800 feet AGL when the event was over. The aircraft deviated from the normal turn to 190 on departure in order to pass through the event  and continued flight safely to LAS.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on initial climb departing EWR.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X departed NZY for practice instrument approach at NZY.  Training in progress.  Trainee handed off Aircraft X to NZY Radar; but failed to effectively communicate transfer until aircraft reached a 2300 ft MVA.  Don't trust Trainee.




Synopsis: SCT TRACON Instructor reported the Developmental did not transfer communication to the Tower until the aircraft reached an area beneath the MVA.