elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201901
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
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: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Climbing out of DEN westbound over the RLG VORTAC; our aircraft was cleared to climb to FL 320. At approximately FL 290; we encountered an area of turbulence in the moderate range that continued to increase in intensity. At approximately FL310; we entered severe turbulence associated with severe mountain wave. I disconnected the autopilot and autothrottle system in an attempt to control the aircraft from exceeding airspeed and altitude constraints.The aircraft continued to climb uncontrollably to approximately FL330. We informed ATC of the event and requested a block altitude and descended back to FL320. The event lasted approximately one minute before the turbulence subsided to the light-to-moderate range. All passengers and flight attendants were seated and no injuries were reported. We continued to our final destination with no further aircraft systems or weather related problems.


Second narrative: On climbout; we were cleared to climb to FL320. ATC reported continuous light; occasional moderate turbulence through 340. These reports matched the [weather program] and Dispatch paperwork. The Captain had the flight attendants sit down and made an announcement to the passengers acknowledging the potential for turbulence and instructing them to remain seated with their seat belts fastened. As we were passing through 310; the aircraft encountered severe turbulence/mountain wave turbulence involving +/- 15 knot airspeed changes and violent attitude changes. Upon reaching FL320; the Captain turned off the autopilot and autothrottle and attempted to level the aircraft. Despite his best efforts; due to the turbulence; the aircraft continued to climb up to 330. Upon reaching 330; the Captain notified ATC of the deviation; requested a block altitude; and began a descent back to 320. He also informed ATC that we encountered severe turbulence over RLG at 320. The event lasted about one minute. Shortly thereafter; another aircraft made the same report within the same vicinity. The severe turbulence was short lived; and we continued the flight without further incident.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported encountering severe turbulence on climbout.
Date: 202004
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I don't feel it's safe for the FAA to extend pilot currency to six months (or 180 days) instead of the normal three months (90 days); whether or not there is a pandemic. No studies were conducted to support this policy change; and no comment period was allowed. I have flown with individuals who were off work for 30 days and it can be scary. I think whatever the FAA policy; our airline would be wise to adhere to our historic practices of three takeoffs and landings within 90 days; or you go do them in a simulator.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot expressed concern about the safety aspect of the FAA's extension of the landing currency requirement from 90 to 180 days.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
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 Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We experienced a tire failure upon landing. The landing and rollout was normal; after stowing the spoilers and slowing through 40 knots as we transferred controls; we experienced some difficulty in maintaining directional control; and swung no more than 4-5 feet left/right of the runway centerline. As I turned off; Tower advised it appeared we had a flat right main landing gear tire. After slowly taxiing to the gate and deplaning without incident; I made the required calls to Dispatch; Maintenance; and the Chief Pilot Office. This was some sort of aircraft malfunction. The landing and rollout was normal. Brake application and deceleration was firm but not abrupt nor aggressive.A logbook review showed the exact same issue happened the day before. Same aircraft; same side; flat tires on the MLG. Furthermore; I've since become aware that this issue occurred again. Same airplane; flat tires on right MLG. 3 times in 5 days. Airplanes with recurring issues should not be signed of as airworthy and continue flying. The company should do whatever is necessary to give our maintenance personnel the tools they need to do their job properly.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported the right main landing gear tire went flat on landing. The aircraft had the same tire fail 3 times in 5 days.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Second aircraft: B737-900
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During descent encountered moderate wake turbulence following a B737-900. Fortunately seat belt sign was on and no injury to the passengers; however it did throw flight attendant into her aft jump seat area. We immediately contacted the all flight attendants after the event and learned she had injury to her shoulder and neck area; but not critical and no need for medical priority handling. Within several minutes we encountered a second event of light wake turbulence behind the same airplane. At this point we elected to slow our airspeed to 210; creating greater spacing. Made comments to ATC for reference; based on TCAS we already had approximately 5 miles or greater of separation when this took place. Landed on Runway 26L without incident and the other aircraft arrived on Runway 26R.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a wake vortex encounter following a B737-900 on arrival to IAH that resulted in a slight injury to a flight attendant.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked onto departure flying the MNZNO3 Departure and was instructed 'To climb via SID'. Aircraft X read back climb via SID and 'Our clearance we were given 9 thousand'. The instructions 'Climb via Sid' is supposed to delete the restriction of 90 and have them climb via to FL200. When Aircraft X was instructed to 'Climb via SID top altitude FL200;' they understood the instructions and the confusion was eliminated. This confusion presents itself every day at ABQ when pilots are given a SID and clearance delivery assigns 'Climb via SID except maintain 100'. When Departure is to clear an aircraft up to the top altitude of the SID; the phraseology is 'Climb via SID'. Pilots are confused interpreting these instructions. This can present an unsafe situation when pilots are assigned a MNZNO3 Departure because of the MVA's (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) to the east and not being able to make the climb. If the pilot is confused and levels off at 90; or starts a late climb; there is a good chance they will not climb high enough above the MVA in time while tracking the SID. Say the pilot reads back correctly 'Climb via SID'; the controller is expecting them to comply with these instructions. Say the controller is busy and does not notice the pilot leveled off; it presents a very unsafe situation as described above. Aircraft on clearance should be instructed to 'Climb via SID' with no altitude restrictions; and if Approach needs an altitude restriction this will be given upon aircraft check in.-OR- All pilots need to be on the same page that when Departure clears an aircraft to 'Climb via SID' this deletes the clearance delivery restriction previously given.-OR-7110.65 phraseology needs to be changed to make it clear to all pilots what altitude they need to climb to. For example; 'Climb via SID' which deletes the restriction given by clearance delivery; should be changed to 'Climb via SID; top altitude _____.' The Departure Controller would then state the top altitude they want the pilot to climb to. This would eliminate all confusion.




Synopsis: ABQ TRACON Controller reported issues relating to the Climb Via clearance.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IND.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IND
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On taxi out we developed a pneumatic problem that required coordination with Maintenance (MX). Ground directed us to taxi into the Juliet Pad for this coordination and we complied pointing southwest and holding just short of taxiway Papa. While troubleshooting our problem with MX; the Captain noticed an approaching aircraft taxiing east to west on Papa. We did not hear ground advise us or this traffic of a potential conflict. As the approaching Airbus approached we noticed a potential conflict and flashed our lights in the limited time allowed to avoid their right wingtip impacting the nose of our aircraft. With a last second jink from them to their left; they avoided an impact by approximately three feet. We alerted ground and subsequently resolved our problem and taxied back to the gate for MX action. Our directed holding position was not adequately clear for oncoming aircraft. We assumed Indy Ground would keep traffic clear of our assigned location while we coordinated our problem with MX. Assign a different holding location with adequate clearance or different taxi route for other aircraft.




Synopsis: First Officer reports being instructed by IND Ground to hold in the Juliet pad short of Papa while troubleshooting a pneumatic problem. An A300 is noticed taxiing west on Papa and it appears a conflict will develop. The flight crew flashes their lights and a last second jink to the left by the A300 avoids the collision.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PRC.Tower, AZ
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E PRC
ATC / advisory: CTAF PRC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The tower had not yet opened; but I observed a fuel truck crossing the active Runway 21L at Taxiway D3. There was a GA aircraft on departure roll; abeam Taxiway D5. After the GA aircraft got airborne; the pilot said; 'Fuel truck; you need to look before you get on a runway; I was departing.' The worst part is; the vehicle should never have been there; as there are loop roads to avoid the runways available to the driver.I did not say anything; as we were not yet legally open. Reeducate the driver; or fire him.




Synopsis: PRC Tower Controller reported a fuel truck crossed the runway as an aircraft was departing before the Tower opened.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon departing passing 6;000 feet the overhead panel flashed L HYD LO annunciator. Checking the left hydraulic pressure gauge I watched the indicator slowly go to zero PSI; as well as the Quantity Indicator going to the 0 indication. As the PNF I went through the QRH for the single Hydraulic system failure checklist. We then advised ATC we needed to return to the departure airport. We contacted the flight attendants and let them know what was going on as well as made a brief PA to the passenger. We completed the Air Return checklist; Advised ATC to have emergency equipment standing by. We called Company Operations on Commercial Radio Service but were too low; we then called Operations and advised of the situation as well as station Maintenance. Knowing the aircraft was overweight approximately 143;000 LBS we wanted to secure the right side was not in fact losing fluid we decided to configure the aircraft flaps 15; as well as lower the gear to aid us in burning fuel to max landing weight. Also if a problem did occur on the right side system the gear and flaps were down and locked; we then advised ATC we would like to hold to burn the excess fuel to get below our landing weight. We held for approximately 15 minutes before we got to 139;500 lbs we then advised ATC we would like to commence the ILS 9L. We landed without incident; taxied to the gate conducted checklist and handed the aircraft over to Maintenance. The aircraft was at approximately 138;900 LBS at landing.




Synopsis: A MD-83 Left Hydraulic System lost fluid after takeoff so an emergency was declared; the QRH completed; and the flight returned to the departure airport for an emergency landing.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RSW.Airport, FL
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I've been flying through RSW twice each week this month. Every flight (when departing Runway 6); I receive the abbreviated clearance 'Cleared to ZZZ airport via the CSHEL 5; LAKELAND transition; Squawk XXXX.' The CRAFT acronym (Clearance; Route; Altitude; Frequency; Transponder) comes to mind when reviewing any clearance. Mentally; I check off every item. Route looks good; frequency is on the chart; transponder is in the box; altitude...? They didn't give me an altitude to maintain or a climb via SID instruction. I then queried ATC and asked them to confirm the altitude assignment. They replied; 'You are cleared via the CSHEL 5 Departure; that's all the information I have for you.' That's odd.So every departure out of RSW this month; I receive the same old clearance which prompts the same old altitude conversation. The responses from Controllers vary from 'You are cleared via the CSHEL 5' to 'I'm only allowed to refer you to the top altitude of 4000 ft on your chart' to 'just fly runway heading to 4000 ft' to 'we're not allowed to issue a climb via SID clearance because there are no crossing restrictions on the SID.'I decided that obviously I've missed a memo. Fort Myers must be on the leading edge of a new Clearance Delivery test program which removes altitude assignments from clearances. I turned to the ATC 7110 for clarification. I'm not sure if I have the latest copy of this document; but 4-3-3 'Abbreviated Departure Clearance'; paragraph D1 states that Controllers are to: 'Specify the assigned altitude. The altitude may be omitted and Pilots instructed to 'Climb via SID' when a top altitude is published in the SID route description.'So according to my informal research; Controllers are required to issue me an altitude or instruct me to climb via; neither of those voluntarily occur when departing Runway 6 on the CSHEL SID in RSW. There seems to be some sort of unique procedural interpretation issue going on in that Tower and they are banking on Pilots just accepting the clearance and ASSUMING that they are cleared to the top altitude of 4000 ft.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that ATC did not issue an altitude assignment when the CSHEL5 from Runway 6 was the clearance nor did they state 'climb via the SID' on numerous occasions.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A B737 was on a vector to the base leg to turn a 10 mile final; and a C208 a Law Enforcement aircraft was on an active mission approximately 1-2 miles south of the final approach course and maneuvering at 5;500 FT MSL. Traffic was called to both airplanes more than once; however with other things going on; I failed to instruct either pilot to 'maintain visual separation'. The B737 was now on vectors to final and asked if they could square the turn to final and that he saw the VFR C208. I wasn't able to approve it because there was a heavy Airbus on final and immediately after I informed the pilot I was unable to approve his request I canceled his approach clearance; issued a heading of 170 and issued an altitude of 5;500 FT because directly south of the aircraft was a 5;500 FT MVA. This transmission was not acknowledged and 'someone on the air said blocked'. I then went back a second time and issued to the B737 'Approach clearance canceled; fly heading 170 and maintain 5;500'; however this transmission also went unanswered. I went back and a third time issued the same previous instructions to the B737 and at that point he advised me he is in a TCAS RA descent and was around 5;100; but turning left to a 170 heading. I told the pilot to advise when he was complete with his RA and could accept the maneuver. By this time the B737 was southeast bound and there was no longer a conflict. First; I would make sure to ensure visual separation was being applied to one or both of the airplanes. Second; I felt compelled to work the C208 and not move him because he was on an active Law Enforcement Mission at that moment. I thought there was enough room in the area; but the C208 suddenly moved towards the point where I was vectoring too. In the future; I imagine we shouldn't be able to approve any kind of mission whether it is a Law Enforcement or a photo mission in such close proximity to a busy final. There are lots of photo mission and Law Enforcement missions approved that always come very close to final. I think these should be approved less and with more awareness on impact of the standard operation and its safety.




Synopsis: L30 Controller described a TCAS RA event involving a Law Enforcement aircraft and an Air Carrier arrival into LAS; the reporter expressing concern regarding the approval procedures for these types of operations.