elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Runway 8L was the current runway in operation and we were assigned 8L from the Approach Controller. Approaching from the South the Controller had us descend to 4000 and then 3000 feet fly a 070 heading or so and cleared us for pretty much a straight in Visual Approach to 8L. Preceding us was an A321 that came in from a base leg to final above us at 4000 feet and intercepted in front of us 1000' above. Our separation was about 3 nm. The winds were a quartering tailwind from the left not too strong. (10-15 kts approximately). Sometime between being cleared for the visual approach and the final approach fix we caught the wake turbulence from that A321. I had to disconnect the autopilot but the aircraft was rocking left and right rather rapidly and I would say approximately 30 degrees of bank change within a second. It lasted for approximately 5-10 seconds. I immediately leveled off and climbed a little bit to get out of it. The rest of the way I followed the glide path high and did not experience any more wake turbulence. The wake turbulence encounters are getting bad in Atlanta. Last summer; I don't remember having so many issues. I have had an abnormally high level of encounters lately and I've been following all the tricks like flying high; staying upwind; etc... The problem is Tower is clearing us to takeoff behind a 757 or A321 before that aircraft has even rotated... (We definitely need more separation from those two!!!). Perfect combination of altitude; winds; and aircraft to create a bad experience. I would love to see us come in and intercept visual approaches higher than other larger aircraft because I've had multiple wake turbulence encounters where a 757 or A321 intercepts the final approach course 1000 feet above us for the same runway. I've been counting to 15 taking off behind a 757 or 321 when Tower clears us for takeoff before he's rotated. I'm going to start using 30 seconds; let's see if ATC has a problem...




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to ATL 3 miles in trail of an A321.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Aircraft component: Aircraft Logbook(s)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There are notices taped to the walls of the ZZZ terminal maintenance office instructing mechanics to stamp the tally sheets for accomplishments and/or deferrals. This seems to suggest after stamping the tally sheets the mechanics hand off the Bill of Work for release. GPM XX-YY states 'the individual responsible to release the aircraft is also responsible for verification of the completion of all related accountabilities.' This is true for system and non-system airplanes. The GPM continues; '...review must be accomplished by an ARA qualified individual and all included accountabilities stamped...' I interpret the passage meaning that an ARA is required to stamp the Tally sheets. If I'm correct the instructions hung at the ZZZ shop are incorrect...a mechanic can't simply stamp accomplishments in the Tally sheets unless they have ARAs.




Synopsis: Technician reported policies and procedures regarding talley checks and Bill of Work forms are confusing and contradictory in reference to who is responsible to complete and what are the qualifications required.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed ZZZ and was enroute to ZZZ1 before direct LR at 2;500 to avoid Bravo airspace.  I identified that a short tail of Bravo I could vector to the final course at 2;500 and remain below the shelf.  The next step would be to 3;500 in a 4;000 shelf of Bravo.  I was monitoring Center departure and several traffic calls were made about me at 2;500.  I kept identified each target and stated clear. I considered identifying that I was on frequency; but he was very busy.  I glanced at my iPad between traffic spots and saw a 4;000 shelf and mistakenly thought I was in the 4;000 shelf so I climbed to 3;500.  The ZZZ2 traffic was held at 4;000. I only went 3;000-3;500 the final 1-2 mi of the shelf (1 minute at my speed) and when he identified me at 3;500; I realized; I wasn't where I thought I was and by then; I was crossing into the 4;000 shelf. Distraction by watching traffic diverted my attention so that a glance misidentified the shelf of Bravo.  I have flown in Bravo for X yrs without violating it.  Flight following would have prevented this; but with the controller cut backs; they are so overworked in Center; I did not think I needed it.




Synopsis: Pilot reported experiencing a Class B airspace violation.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RKSI.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: In Jeppesen Pro X; the Jeppesen approach chart for the ILS RWY 33R is dated OCT XX. The changeover date for the charts was on OCT X; since I flew on OCT X+1 and had to designate which set of Jeppesen I wanted to use for that flight. On our flight on OCT XY the only ILS for RWY 33R is dated XX OCT 20. The date appears wrong since the other two approach charts for that runway are effective at XA:00Z on OCT X. We were cleared to the new points on the XX OCT 20 dated ILS. My guess is an error was made by Jeppesen on the publication of the chart.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Crew reported a publication date discrepancy on an approach chart.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Perfect landing after getting 3 green checking circuit breakers; and touching down - approx. 1-2 seconds after start of roll out / gear collapsed. Eye witness saw landing - confirmed gear and flaps down and controlled landing. This statement taken by FAA.




Synopsis: BE36 pilot experiences a landing gear collapse after a perfect landing with the gear indicating down and three green lights.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X SJC-ZZZ received flight plan from Dispatch with the Loupe5 departure Runway 30R; received CPDLC clearance with a change to Techy 3 RNAV reprogrammed FMC prior to pushback reviewed entire departure. We departed following the Techy 3. Turned southbound on the climb with SJC Departure giving the climb unrestricted to 19;000 feet after SPTNS at 5;000 feet restriction; then Controller gave us a right 340 heading as we started the turn the Controller gave us direct ILC when able. Put direct ILC into FMC on autopilot the aircraft went left instead of doing a full 270 right turn which Controller gave us prior. Which is what the aircraft was programmed to do. In our left turn to direct ILC the Controller came back and said they wanted a right turn to 340 then direct ILC. Both myself and SIC (Second in Command) looked at each other and said that was not how we understood the clearance. We returned to heading select and went right to 340 once reaching 340 then went direct ILC. ILC was about a 030 we were on the departure on a heading of 125.The Controller should of gave us a heading of 340 let us turn to 340 then gave us direct upon rolling out not as we were still on the 125 heading. The automation will take the aircraft to the closest direct which in this case is a left turn.

Callback: Reporter indicated ATC wanted a right hand turn back over the SJC VOR prior to the turn to ILC; replicating the Loupe departure procedure. The ATC instruction for direct ILC did not include a left or right turn.



Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported a track heading deviation due to miscommunication with NCT departure about a vector to the next fix.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working a Henderson departure on the SCAMR1 SID. The crossing restriction is 6;000 and he climbed well. The air carrier was departing Runway 19 at LAS and was climbing o the NIITZ1 SID. The crossing restriction is 7;000 over top of the SCAMR1; but 3 miles was lost and no divergence before the air carrier reached the crossing restriction.Move the flight paths away from each other as not to lose lateral separation. These are new routes for Metroplex and this was the first I've seen of these 2 departures at the same time.




Synopsis: L30 TRACON Controller reported a loss of required separation between aircraft departing different airports on newly implemented RNAV SIDs which do not provide for procedural separation.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ATC direct failure to advise hold short of Runway 9C in the initial clearance. After the switch from Ground to another Tower frequency no instruction was given to hold short 9C. We were given clearance to taxi M1; M; right onto Runway 22R hold short of E. Aircraft Y was ahead of us given the same clearance hold short E monitor Tower 132.70. The Aircraft Y encroached Runway 9C as Aircraft Z was on its takeoff roll on 9C. ATC Controller yelled Aircraft Y stop! Immediately after Aircraft Z cancel takeoff clearance STOP! The Aircraft Z appeared from behind the hangars with the nose wheel off the ground in a slight right bank as the Controller said 'Do you see that plane'?  Aircraft Y was given a number to contact the Tower. There are no 'wig wags' installed at any intersections along this runway. There are no stop bars installed. There are multiple obstructions to visibility. Taxiing into the sun is a factor. Runway markings and signage is unacceptable for the size and scope of the runway; and it's intended use. New construction all around the airport with pilots returning to work from furlough; and layoffs or leave of absence. Trust bias that ATC is correct in the instructions given. Attempting to move aircraft with expedience rather than a structured taxi route. No designation of any 'hot spots ' on aeronautical charts. Cease and desist using Runway 22R as a taxiway! The use of this Runway as a taxiway is the inevitable set up for a mass casualty accident!




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported observing a critical ground conflict at ORD airport when Runway 22R was being used as a taxiway.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I went to where my Piper Saratoga is hangared for the purpose of doing three night takeoffs and three full stop night landings.I took off and then made a full stop landing on the same runway. After coming to a full stop; I took off again; remained in the pattern and set up for a second full stop night landing. I fully extended the flaps; pitched the nose of the aircraft up a little and entered into a gentle touch down. I forgot to lower the landing gear; resulting in a gear up landing.




Synopsis: PA32 pilot reports planning three night takeoffs and landing for currency. On the second landing the landing gear is forgotten and a gear up landing ensues.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During boarding for flight; Flight Attendant A called me and asked if I could come talk to the passenger in seat XB. She felt he was possibly intoxicated. I went to XB; he seemed upset and was yelling for another unknown passenger to come sit by him.  I asked him if he was doing okay; he seemed agitated and upset. He was slurring his speech and had a slight smell of alcohol. He said he was fine but wanted his friend to come sit by him. I asked him if he had been drinking. He replied 'I had a big beer but I don't drive so I'm fine.' I asked him if he was intoxicated and he replied 'I only had a beer.' At that point I went to the front of the plane and asked Flight Attendant A if she believed he was intoxicated and she stated that she did feel he was intoxicated and that he had been rude to other guests and was upset he had to wear a mask. At that point with us both agreeing he was intoxicated she informed the Captain that he needed to be removed due to him being intoxicated.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a possibly intoxicated person was removed from flight.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Level at 8;000 ft MSL. Radar contact with Center. There was a sudden; very loud banging noise in aircraft. My first thought was an engine problem. Immediately reduced power to slow down and started descent. Attempted to contact Center on assigned frequency. No response. I determined that the cause of noise was not engine related at about 7;600 feet MSL and that there was no cause to terminate the flight. Added power; returned to course and climbed back to assigned altitude (8;000 ft). Center never queried our intentions. Aircraft is equipped with a sliding canopy that swells slightly in width at cruise speeds due to aerodynamic loads on the canopy. My wife was using a light jacket to shield herself from the sun on the right side of the aircraft. One sleeve of the jacket was pulled out of the aircraft thru a 1/8-inch gap between the canopy skirt and the airframe. The jacket sleeve was pulled out approximately 15 inches and beat the side of the aircraft. We were able to retrieve the sleeve and continued to our destination.




Synopsis: RV-6A pilot reported becoming alarmed at a banging noise in flight that turned out be a jacket sleeve that was drawn out of the canopy and was striking the fuselage.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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 New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC had assigned us an earlier timed descent to FL290 requiring a 2;000 FPM descent. Pilot Flying selected Vertical Speed mode to meet the descent. Prior to leveling; ATC revised the clearance to descent via the RNAV Arrival and delete the speeds. Both pilots confirmed the bottom altitude of the arrival at 13;000 feet; but failed to confirm the descent mode was in VNAV. Pilot Flying became distracted with updating the speeds on the arrival and did not see the aircraft was still descending in Vertical Speed mode. Upon passing 14;000 feet; the Pilot Flying realized the aircraft was below the arrival descent profile and began reversing the descent. About the same time ATC called to query our altitude as we had descended below their Minimum Vectoring Altitude. We were issued a climb back to 14;000 feet which we complied with and then a vector off the arrival to final and further descent. The rest of the arrival was without incident.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported they descended below their assigned altitude during descent to DEN and ATC advised them they were below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.