elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; 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; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Often I get asked questions concerning paperwork as an instructor. The problem is I am finding new supervisors are given a stamp without anyone explaining what they can or cannot stamp. So as tribal knowledge and miss information travels the new supervisors are told by coworkers they can stamp anything that is why they have a stamp. This is why we are finding work pack signed off by new supervisors that are not qualified to sign for anything because they never got a day of training.




Synopsis: Maintenance instructor reported that new supervisors are unclear on company policy regarding what they are allowed to stamp; resulting in a potential safety issue.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a visual approach on a clear day we received a 'Too Low Flaps' EGPWS warning at around 300 feet AGL.  I was the pilot monitoring with the Captain flying.  We elected to go around.  We executed the go-around per the Ops manual got cleared back into the pattern and preceded to land uneventfully. The reason for the go around is that on the Airbus; we have to select the landing configuration in the box and also manually select Flaps 3 on the EGPWS panel so this situation does not occur.  Typically the pilot flying does both of these actions when they are loading the performance page in the box and these items are not checked.  I have now added into my mental checklist the 1;000 foot and 500 foot automatic callouts.  Neither of these callouts were made automatically on this particular attempt at landing; but they both occurred on the follow on landing.  So if they are not made; I do a configuration check on my own to include that the Flaps 3 button is set to the briefed flap setting.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer experiences an EGPWS warning for too low flaps at 300 feet during a visual approach. The flying Captain executes a go around. A Flaps 3 landing had been planned and the FMC programmed but Flaps 3 had not been selected on the EGPWS panel; resulting in the warning.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the Final Controller running 15L/15R visual approaches. 5 miles is required for 15R for the Tower due to runway and taxiway closures. Thirty degree intercept turns are required for parallel runway operations for visual approaches. Aircraft X was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 15L and the B737 was cleared for the visual to 15R when they joined on the center lines with no belly up situation they were still out side of the 30 degree angle so TARP said it was a 'loss of separation.' This was not an unsafe operation for either aircraft; I believe the 7110.65 change needs to be re evaluated for runways more than 4;300 FT between parallels. It just increases Controller and pilot workload unnecessarily.




Synopsis: PCT Controller described a TARP recorded separation event involving the mandated thirty degree turn on for visual approaches.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Operations notified me of two aircraft batteries on the aircraft.  We waited for the NOTAC [Notice to Captain] to arrive. I filled out one form and kept the other one with the required paperwork.  Dispatch notified us enroute to make sure we knew about the batteries. We then made a note under the remarks section of the release stating HAZMAT on flight.


Second narrative: We were delayed out of ZZZ because we needed the correct paperwork for HAZMAT that was loaded. Once we received it; and the Captain reviewed it and signed it; we were on our way. Once airborne; Dispatch sent us a message advising us it needed to be on the release and to fill out a report.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported Dispatch notified them enroute of missing Hazmat information on Final Flight Release documentation.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: King Air departed with a non-operational Mode-C. I had them report their altitude and try and re-cycle their transponder. I then also turned them to a heading of 340 to get them on course. I thought I climbed them to 14;000 as is our [standard] hand off with the Center. In the meantime; a controller change was in progress and I said I would coordinate with the Center that the aircraft Mode-C was inoperative. As I was doing so; the King Air reported a terrain warning to which the other controller climbed them immediately and asked if they had been assigned 14;000. They responded that they had not been. Contributing to the problem was I asked them what altitude they were at so I could issue a point out to another sector and I believed they said they were leaving 4;000; but they must have said they were level at 4;000. I think I would have checked his altitude on my own prior to the altitude warning and realized I forgot to climb them if a controller change was not in progress; so that was a cause. Also not being able to see the altitude was obviously the main problem; but I still should have made sure they were climbing. Always double check the altitude of someone with an invalid Mode-C even if you think you climbed them.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a low altitude event when a non-Mode C IFR departure apparently was not issued a climb to the appropriate altitude; the reporter noting position relief distractions and malfunctioning Mode C as a causal factors.
Date: 201207
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Booster Pump
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: En route VFR about 12 miles north of ZZZ airport and still in cruise I changed fuel tanks from the left tip to the full right tip. I used the fuel pump. About 30 seconds later the engine stammered and lost RPM's. I held altitude as the airspeed diminished to best glide; pulled out my emergency checklist; squawked 7700 and informed ATC that I had an emergency. A Controller suggested that I turn on the fuel pump and I did so. About 30-40 seconds into the incident the engine came back to full RPM. The Controller then suggested alternate air; but I declined to make any changes and proceeded toward the airport; also declining to land at another airport that was closer and a bit behind me because I preferred the flat ground ahead between me and the first airport and also saw that the engine seemed now fully functioning. I landed without incident at the airport. Fire trucks greeted me. I then had the aircraft inspected by a Maintenance facility. I left it with them for over 2 hours. They ran the engine up. They told me that they noticed two inches of fuel in the left tip and the two mains were either very low or dry; and concluded that probably air was sucked in during the switch from the left tip across to the right tip. They said the aircraft seems 'fine' and suggested that I do a thorough run-up before departure. I purchased 44 gallons of fuel; did a thorough run-up and departed and flew without any incident. As there was nothing wrong with the aircraft that required any mechanical work; I did not think that a return-to-service was necessary. I have since flown the aircraft about 12 hours and everything seems fine.




Synopsis: PA32 pilot experiences engine failure 12 miles from destination after switching fuel from the left tip tank to the right. The fuel pump is turned on at the Controller's suggestion and the engine returns to normal operation.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While operating flight from ATL Tower cleared us to position and wait on 9L while an RJ flight took off in front. Tower then cleared us to take off as normal. All calls were normal through 80 KTS. At about 120 KTS the Captain initiated an abort and I looked up from my scan of the instruments and saw an aircraft taxiing across the runway on Taxiway DIXIE. The abort went as per normal and I made a call to the Tower and a PA to the passengers as the Captain brought the ship to a stop off the runway at M14. We stopped at M/DIXIE Taxiways and ran through the procedures for post abort and then made calls to ground ramp and company for further guidance. After consulting with operations we were instructed to return to the gate.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer departing Runway 9L at ATL describes a rejected takeoff at 120 KTS when the Captain notices an aircraft crossing the runway ahead.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Physiological - Other; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were in the descent around 30;000 FT; in IMC. Clouds were thin cirrus. There were T-storms about 20-25 miles to the right; east of us. They were all that showed on the aircraft radar. The flight had been uneventful in all ways. No turbulence was reported or experienced until the event. Then the aircraft experienced instantaneous severe turbulence for about 5 seconds. It felt like hitting pot holes in a fast car with no shocks. Worst episode I have encountered in 34 years of flying. The autopilot roll mode disengaged due to the severity of the event. Aircraft control was impossible for those 5 seconds. I lowered my head to avoid possible impact with ceiling and watched the instruments. Aircraft descended and banked left 20-25 degrees. Speed remained constant around 300 KTS. No stall warning; no overspeed clacker but when the turbulence stopped and I tried to level the plane I realized the autopilot was in CWS (Control Wheel Steering). I disengaged the autopilot; regained control of the aircraft and re-engaged it. Then we called the cabin crew to assess any injuries. Next we informed ATC of the event. We asked for medical services to meet us at the gate. We got direct clearance to short final and I kept the speed up. I flew 270 KTS for a bit below 10;000 ft. We sent ACARS messages to dispatch in reference to the event. No further turbulence was encountered and the remainder of the flight was uneventful. We were too close to [destination airport] to consider medlink or a divert with the injuries the Flight Attendants described to us. All crew members performed very well.


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


Synopsis: A B737 encountered severe turbulence with loss of control and cabin injuries at FL300.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Piston
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During [the] lesson; we conducted 3 landings in the traffic pattern at ZZZ on Runway XXR. On the final landing a touch and go was performed. On the climbout at 1;500 feet. I noticed a decrease in engine performance and noticed that the cylinder 6 Cylinder Head Temperature (CHT) was fluctuating between a zero indication and white. I immediately took controls; boost was already on; I switched tanks; turned alternate air induction on and verified the magnetos were on both leveled from the climb and reduced power. I then contacted Departure and notified them I was returning to ZZZ with engine abnormalities. We were given priority to land on Runway XXR. Landed on Runway XXR with no further incidents.Once I noticed the partial power loss and noticed the CHT indications; I immediately executed the partial power loss checklist. I did not move the magnetos; it was evident that Cylinder 6 was inoperative and I did not want to risk an even further power loss scenario by switching between magnetos. I made a slightly higher than and faster than normal approach to Runway XXR in the case of total power loss.




Synopsis: SR20 Pilot reported engine power loss and elected to return to the airport and make a precautionary landing.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X called me on the frequency saying that he could not get a response on the other frequency. I looked and could not see him so I asked for his position. He told me southeast of DFW airport. I looked and saw that he was a departure off of DFW airport. At the time he was immediately below another aircraft and in Dallas South (DS) airspace. He was approximately 3 or 4 miles south of DFW. I did not know what Dallas South was doing with their traffic; I did not know the extent of his issue with the frequency issue; he was talking to me just fine; he spoke with Tower just fine and I know DS was working more airplanes at the time than normal for DS. I assumed it was frequency congestion and he was not getting a response; or he got the wrong departure frequency. I gave him the correct departure frequency. After that I was asked by DS if I had spoken to him. I said; 'yes and I gave him your frequency.' He never did check on with DS. I tried two times to contact aircraft X on guard to change to my frequency on Dallas North (DN). He finally came onto my frequency about 10 miles south of Dallas Love and we took care of aircraft X on the DN frequency from there.I believe we are setting these props up for an MVA violation by having them come off of DFW airport on a heading and altitude that takes them straight into the MVA. If their frequency does not work; as is what happened in this situation; or if there is frequency congestion then this is going to be the result. If the props need to come off on that heading; which they do; then they need to be given 030 instead of 020. That way we are not leading an aircraft into an unsafe situation at an unsafe altitude if some type of issue arises.




Synopsis: D10 TRACON Controller reported a departing aircraft could not contact the correct D10 TRACON sector. The aircraft was assigned a departure altitude which would take it below the minimum vectoring altitude.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Wake turbulence during landing causes multiple EICAS error messages.  We were cleared for a visual approach to Runway 16R at SEA; following a 737. The Captain was the Pilot Flying.  On final; with the auto pilot off; we encountered wake turbulence that rocked the plane back and forth pretty good.  This was soon followed by several EICAS messages. The messages that I recall seeing included: STALL PROT FAIL; WSHR DETECT FAIL; AOA LIMIT FAIL; and AT FAIL.  I think there may have been more messages displayed but this is all I recall as I write this report.  I asked the Captain if we should add a few knots to our Vapp speed and he said we should go around and sort this out.  Inside the FAF and fully configured; we executed a go-around.  Once we were back with Approach; the Captain transferred the flying and radio responsibility to me and he went through the QRH.  From the QRH we determined what our new approach speed should be as a result of the failures. This new approach was higher then what we had originally planned; so it was good thing we checked.  We had lost all of our stall protection and wind shear detection. He notified Dispatch; the flight attendants; and ATC of our situation and requested 28L. He also gave an update to the passengers.  Once we were ready to commence a new approach he took over the flying duties and we landed without incident.  After landing the EICAS messages that we previously displayed went away and were replaced with ADS 1 & 3 failure message.




Synopsis: EMB-175 F/O reported executing a go-around after encountering wake turbulence from a preceding B737 that resulted in multiple system anomalies.