elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Airspace: Special Use ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Traffic Management
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Traffic Management Unit when [Military Special Use Airspace Facility] called and wanted to give back their airspace. They called and said they would keep [Warning Area X] and [Warning Area Y] active surface to 15000 feet. I asked them if that was it; they responded yes and the coordination was complete. I then went through our checklist and made all of their airspace cold except for [Warning Area X] and [Warning Area Y]. I then called the areas including [the adjacent center] to advise them of the change. After that I was relieved and went on break. Less than an hour later [Military Special Use Airspace Facility] called and wanted to verify their airspace which is when the Traffic Management Unit learned that they had intended to only change [Warning Area X] and [Warning Area Y] and keep the rest of their airspace active as it had been. So for about an hour we were showing their airspace cold while they were showing it hot. I am not sure how many aircraft flew through the military airspace because of it. The amount of coordination and work that is involved in the Traffic Management position at ARTCC is unsafe. There is so much airspace going active and cold all the time and the workload involved in coordinating the airspace is so much that things do get missed from time to time. I am not sure if I have a fix to the position but there has to be an easier way to coordinate in real time the active military airspace. I think that [Military Special Use Airspace Facility] needs to be clearer when they are communicating with the mission's position what they need when they are calling up or down airspace.




Synopsis: ARTCC Traffic Management Controller coordinated military special use airspace status with the military controlling facility. Due to a miscommunication; the ARTCC controller and the military facility were not aligned as to what airspace was under military control.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CGI.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CGI
ATC / advisory: Tower CGI
Second aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While we were about 15 miles out; we called the field in sight and canceled IFR. We were on a 3 mile final when the Tower instructed [another aircraft] to make a 'dog leg' or 'tight downwind.' They were cleared to land right in front of us. We were going about 120 KTS. We immediately knew were going to have to execute a go around. We then made left traffic to come back around. As we turned downwind to base we saw another aircraft a little ways out they were also turning onto a right base to final (at the time they were at our 2 o'clock position). As we made our turn to final the Cessna was right above us (They were less than 500 FT from us). They were told they were number 2 to land. They could not see us in front of them. We told them we were slightly lower and ahead of them. We landed without further incident. The Tower should not put an aircraft going 80 KTS faster than another aircraft right behind them on final. Also they should not have Left and Right traffic going at the same time.




Synopsis: The pilot of a small transport aircraft reported that ATC turned another aircraft in front of them on 3 mile final. After executing a go-around; a different aircraft turned in front of them and created a Near-Mid-Air-Collision condition.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B DTW
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain put in the crossing restriction and we were helping ATC with 'how do u hear this frequency?' Then Captain inserted the approach in the FMS. The FMS dropped the restriction out of VNAV and we did not notice. ATC asked us if we were aware of restriction at GEMINI at 12;000 feet. I said we would not make it and I asked for a vector off airway. We got to 12;000 feet and resumed arrival into DTW. I'm not sure why the FMS dropped the restriction AFTER Captain inserted the approach? He did it again to see if it would drop it again (just to test his theory) and it did it a second time too.




Synopsis: EMB170 First Officer reports an arrival crossing restriction being deleted when the approach is entered in the FMC.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On the STOCR3 arrival into CLT; at FL220 making the turn at [FLLGG]. There was a quartering tailwind from the left. Encountered light then moderate and then severe turbulence which caused the aircraft to dip quickly to the left; between 60 and 90 degrees. The aircraft lost only 400 feet. We recovered. We informed ATC and they said the sector above had an Airbus out ahead of us. Likely wake turbulence. ATC said they would make a report on their end as well.




Synopsis: EA-500 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence from a preceding Airbus on arrival into CLT.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Crew received route clearance prior to taxi. Route clearance given began with the Atlanta Six departure SOONE transition. Departure instructions for Atlanta Six departure off of Runway 9L state 'fly heading 095 and expect RADAR vectors to transition climb and maintain 10;000.' After cleared to line up and wait; Tower then cleared the aircraft for take off on 9L and stated turn heading 110 at the 'Middle Marker.' The complications arose here. This non standard clearance was given after take off clearance given; giving the crew little time to determine exact position on the Middle Marker. The crew assumed the 'middle marker' was for the opposite direction ILS. Again this was not clearly stated by ATC. Also; Tower cleared a heavy Airbus A330 for take off prior to our take off clearance. The crew discussed a maximum performance take off and climb would be executed to avoid wake turbulence. On the take off roll; after receiving the clearance to execute the turn to 110 at the marker; the Captain selected the audible marker beacon tone on. However due to our high climb rate to avoid wake turbulence we were already greater than 4;000 feet when crossing the Middle Marker and no tone or signal was ever received. This is most likely due to the fact that middle marker normal altitude use is 200 feet and not 4;000 feet. The crew was above an overcast layer and could not determine the location of the marker beacon visually. Crew subsequently executed a turn when they were reasonably sure of passing the Marker Beacon. ATC informed the crew they had executed the turn late. To fix this problem- ATC should assign an altitude or a known fix on the departure to execute a turn; not an unknown marker beacon that is in no way shape or form associated with the take off runway. Also; due to our aircraft's steep climb and high altitude; a Middle Marker cannot reasonably be used to determine position at an altitude of 4;000 feet when its normal altitude use is 200 feet.




Synopsis: Citation jet departing ATL Runway 9L on the Atlanta Six SID experienced some confusion when ATC instructed the aircraft to initiate a turn at the Middle Marker after the take off clearance was issued.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: At FL200 in cruise to ZZZ; we were experiencing continuous moderate turbulence for the majority of the flight. The seat belt sign was on and the FAs (Flight Attendants) were seated when we suddenly experienced severe/extreme turbulence 50 miles NE of ZZZ1. The event lasted approximately 20 seconds and we encountered airspeed deviations of +/- 20 knots and altitude deviations of +/- 200 feet. The aircraft was briefly uncontrollable. We were maintaining 270 knots when we experienced this encounter. We did not experience any indications of an over-speed. During this encounter we immediately made a report with ATC and were cleared to descend to 17;000 MSL. We then confirmed the safety of our FAs and passengers and then sent a message to Dispatch via ACARS.We then continued in moderate turbulence and began a descent into ZZZ. At 13;000 feet over ZZZ2 we experienced approximately 10-15 seconds of severe/extreme turbulence again; made the notification to ATC and again confirmed everyone was stilled seated. We received reports from the preceeding aircraft on the approach into ZZZ; which indicated occasional moderate turbulence and a ceiling of approximately 1;000 feet. We continued the approach and landing at ZZZ with no further incident and immediately contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control at the gate.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported severe turbulence encounter resulting in momentary loss of control.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PSP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D PSP
ATC / advisory: Tower PSP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During approach to Runway 31L in visual conditions we became task saturated and failed to configure the aircraft by 1;000 AGL.  We executed a go-around in response to the late configuration.  During the visual go-around we leveled at 2;000 feet and ATC advised the minimum vectoring altitude was 3;000 feet so we initiated a climb to 3000 feet.  Late configuration.  Did not set altitude pre-select to the published missed approach altitude.Earlier configuration and reference the published missed approach altitude on the approach plate being used for the backup.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that the aircraft was not properly configured for approach to PSP airport and a go-around was conducted. During the go-around; ATC advised that they had leveled off below minimum vectoring altitude.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approaching HOWDY on the WHINY 1 arrival the runway assignment was given. Upon selecting the new runway and transition the GFMS went into heading Hold. The aircraft proceeded past HOWDY maybe a mile; then we asked for a vector and told them we were unable to comply with the altitudes at VANCO. We were then given a vector and altitude; proceeded on into an approach to 36R. While loading the Arrival/transition/runway/transition this late in the game increased the workload to the point where we did not notice the aircraft went into heading hold until past HOWDY. Runway assignment on low visibility days should be given to MD80's early. The aircraft systems are not meant to fly Star arrivals with tight restrictions and FMS systems that do not easily accept changes. To change the runway is easy; to change the arrival/ transition/runway/transition then close discontinuities to fly the arrival is too much late in the arrival. Software issues should be resolved.




Synopsis: MD80 pilot reported a change in runway assignment approaching HOWDY on the WHINY1 arrival. The aircraft went into heading mode after the changes were initiated and not immediately detected by the crew. A track deviation occurred and the VANCO crossing restriction was missed.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were climbing via the North Town Three Departure. Around 3;000 feet we contacted departure. ATC (Las Vegas Departure) gave us a new altimeter setting from 30.03 to 30.00 and then proceeded with the following clearance. Aircraft X; fly straight out; climb maintain 9;000 feet. Our current altitude was approximately 3;800 feet before reaching the LAS R-313 so we were still heading westerly towards terrain and not established on the LAS R313 outbound. Student noted how strange it was for ATC to vector us this low and close to terrain. Moment later; ATC gave us a low altitude alert and suggested a right turn to 090. Then ATC proceeded about a possible ATC deviation and to call a number.Confusion between what ATC meant to say and what pilots actually did. The clearance 'fly straight out' was filled with ambiguity (was still flying westerly and not heading northwest on published procedure and was perceived as a vector for climb. Before pilots had a chance to request clarification; low altitude alert was issued.




Synopsis: A pilot and instructor were confused by the updated clearance provided by ATC that appeared to direct them towards rising terrain. Before the crew could question the clearance; ATC provided an low altitude alert along with notice of a possible pilot deviation.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Pilot-in-Command. While descending we received multiple aircraft failures including an IC600-1 failure; AHRS 1 failure; Autopilot failure; Yaw Damper failure; SPS Advance EICAS Caution message and other associated failures resulting from the IC600-1 and AHRS 1 failures. We declared an emergency with ATC and notified dispatch. We also alerted the Flight Attendant who then informed the passengers. We complied with all AOM-1 and FM-1 policies and procedures and the flight landed safely at without further incident.


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


Synopsis: Aircraft experienced failure of the attitude and heading reference system resulting in multiple failures in flight dynamic subsystems.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp EGLL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Upon arriving at the gate in LHR; the Captain taxied in on centerline. The proper indications of B757-200 were displayed. Initially it was working properly guiding the centerline control. About half way to the gate from the service road it posted 'SLOW' and otherwise seemed normal. The Captain slowed but the indication never changed. At the point at which we all expected to see the countdown from 15 miles; it seemed delayed. Given that at some gates the nose of the plane comes quite close to the terminal it did not immediately raise an alarm to us that we had gone too far. As the Captain slowed further due to the 'SLOW' indication; we saw movement by a ground worker toward an emergency panel. It got all of our attentions and we commented on it. The ground person hit the emergency stop button and we stopped. We were told we had traveled 25 feet beyond the normal stop point and the left engine stopped within 3 feet of hitting the jetway. They left the aircraft in position to investigate further why the automated park had malfunctioned. While coming inbound I was never able to determine which stop line was ours; so I did not have an additional point of reference to establish better situational awareness. The Captain had stated that he had never been to Heathrow.




Synopsis: An EGLL gate auto-stop parking system failed so that a ground worker had to command a B757-200 emergency stop to prevent an engine from contacting the jetway.