elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: TBM 900 / TBM 930
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting an instrument training flight. I was on an assigned heading of 360 and altitude of 10;000 feet. ATC asked if I could take 11;000 feet. I read back climb 11;000 feet. He quickly said that he was just asking it was not yet a clearance. I remained at 10;000 feet.A few moments later he gave me a heading of 320 and 11;000 feet. I read back left 320 and climb 11;000 feet. He made no further transmission. As I leveled off at 11;000 feet. ATC said that he did not climb me and told me to descend back to 10;000 feet. I apologized and told him I had read back 11;000 feet. There were no aircraft on TCAS within 20 NM at the time of the altitude deviation. ATC continued on with giving me vectors. The frequency was very busy and there were many people stepping on each other. The same Controller was vectoring me to ZZZ when my destination was IMM that is in the opposite direction. I called it to his attention and he apologized twice; it was not problem. The Controller was very busy and in my opinion his use of none standard language was causing me to listen and decipher his intent on a couple times.




Synopsis: TBM 900 instructor pilot reported communication problems with ATC which led the pilot to an altitude excursion.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While conducting a Maintenance verification flight and after applying takeoff power we had the following CASS (Continuous Analysis and Surveillance System) messages: AP fail; Yaw Damper fail; Ventral Rudder Fail. We got up to less than jogging speed when we rejected the takeoff. We immediately alerted ATC; exited the runway; and taxied back to the ramp. After shutting down the aircraft I contacted our company Maintenance and Dispatch.


Second narrative: While conducting a Maintenance verification flight we experienced the following CASS (Continuous Analysis and Surveillance System) message immediately after advancing the thrust levers for takeoff: Autopilot Fail; Yaw Damper Fail; Ventral Rud Fail. Immediately aborted takeoff and notified ATC.


Synopsis: EMB-505 flight crew reported an autopilot failure that resulted in a rejected takeoff.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had 2 aircraft on frequency landing at ZZZ. I had Aircraft Y on a vector for a visual at 5;000; and Aircraft X on a vector for an ASR (Approach Surveillance Radar) at 10;000. I issued a descent to 4;000 and a frequency change to ZZZ to Aircraft Y. Aircraft X read back these instructions. I caught a correct read back of the instructions but did not catch the incorrect call sign. Aircraft X was in an 8;700 MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude). I noticed the aircraft descending through 8;900; reached out on frequency then issued a low altitude alert when I observed him leaving the MVA altitude. Then on both UHF and VHF guard frequencies. Reached out to the previous sector to see if they came back and also to verify they were in fact IFR and not miss tagged. Center verified they were IFR and that they didn't have them. Aircraft X returns to frequency; ZZZ later said they sent him back when he came over to them. Once on frequency I again issued low altitude alert; verified he did have terrain in sight; and climbed them back up. At this point I did have the EVOM [Emergency Obstruction Video Map] up. We sorted out what had happened. I eventually descended him back in for the approach; switched to ZZZ; aircraft landed safely. The pilot misheard who the instructions were for and I missed the call sign on read back.




Synopsis: ATC Approach Controller reported miscommunication between aircraft resulting in aircraft descending below the MVA.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.TRACON, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The WEAZL4 departure off Runway 36C calls for heading 003 to 1260 ft. then 330 heading. We had just rolled out on the 330 heading when we hit the wake causing a significant roll rate to the left. The left bank angle reached approximately 45 degrees. The aircraft would not respond to full right aileron input. I made certain the yoke was full right; and the Captain joined me on the controls so I know we definitely had full right aileron in. I gently toed the right rudder and that was enough to bring the aircraft out of the roll. We had taken off immediately behind an Airbus (I do not remember the specific type). We estimate we were approx 1;800 ft. AGL.




Synopsis: B717 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence departing CLT in trail of an Airbus.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [We were] conducting the TRUPS ONE arrival. ATC had taken us off of and back on the arrival a few times for spacing. We were then cleared direct TRUPS Intersection and resume the arrival. After passing TRUPS Intersection we continued the descent to cross FRDMM at 8;000 FT. As we were passing 10;400 FT Controller intervened and advised that we had not been given a new altitude and then cleared us to 9;000 FT. No conflict was noted by the flight crew or indicated by the Controller. I suggest when giving a clearance to resume an RNAV STAR that the Controller verbalize either a maintain altitude or give the clearance to descend via the arrival to avoid any miscommunication.

Callback: The reporter confirmed that they had; indeed; originally been cleared 'via' the STAR and then vectored off. He was uncertain; but believed that when they were vectored they had also been cleared to descend to 11;000; which is also the crossing restriction at TRUPS. When ATC cleared them 'direct to TRUPS' and to 'resume the STAR' they interpreted that 'resume' meant they were; again; cleared 'via' the STAR and--lacking a new cleared altitude--could descend 'via' the balance of the arrival as they would have had they not been vectored off it.He also advised their aircraft was a -800 model B737; equipped with fully functional FMS VNAV capability including autothrottles. When allowed to fly even the most complex STARs in their entirety the system routinely performs perfectly and it is only when it is necessary for ATC to interrupt the arrival that errors such as this occur.



Synopsis: After they were vectored off the TRUPS RNAV STAR to DCA for spacing the flight crew of a B737-800 assumed that a clearance 'direct to TRUPS; resume the STAR' included the clearance to resume descent on the arrival. ATC disagreed; believing they should have maintained their last assigned altitude independent of the STAR restrictions.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HEF.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff climbing to cruise altitude; we lost engine power. I; as the instructor; took flight controls and [notified ATC]. I was able to restart the engine while being low to the ground and made it back to [our departure] airport. Upon landing I saw that the left fuel tank was empty. The student had verified that the tanks were filled to the tabs; however it drained out after takeoff.




Synopsis: PA-32 Instructor reported a loss of engine power due to a loss of fuel from the left fuel tank.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
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 DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On final approach to DCA Runway 33 about 1.5 miles out at 1;200 AGL; we initiated a go-around due to windshear. We advised ATC and were told to proceed on the approach towards the airport and maintain 2;000 FT. We complied with ATC's instructions. Below us at the airport another flight executed a go-around from Runway 1 and a commuter flight departed Runway 1 all while we were on the go-around from Runway 33. While almost over the field Tower advised us to make an immediate right turn to heading 090 to avoid the traffic. The Captain disconnected the autopilot and executed the right turn at the aircraft's maximum safe bank angle. The right turn instructions by ATC sent us very close to the P-56 area. Upon executing the turn to 090 we leveled back off at 2;000 FT and contacted departure in order to begin our diversion.ATC should separate traffic adequately in anticipation of conflicts between takeoffs and potential go-around between Runway 1 and Runway 33.




Synopsis: The confluence of two windshear directed go-arounds from Runways 1 and 33 and a separate takeoff from Runway 1 at DCA resulted in a separation management crisis for ATC. The reporter was directed to make an abrupt right turn to avoid both the traffic and the P56 prohibited area.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had just accepted the LC1 position and switched Aircraft X to NorCal departure. Within 4 miles of the departure end; I noticed that the aircraft had climbed to almost 5;000. At that time; CI-1 went in my ear and asked if we had coordinated anything with Aircraft X regarding an unrestricted climb. We had not. CI-1 proceeded to tell me that this is the second aircraft this morning that had blown through the 4 DME crossing restriction on the Oakland 6 or Skyline 4 departure. (Cross 4 DME between 1;400 and 2;000).I think that this was an issue for this aircraft due to the pilot not following the SID exactly as follows. We have quiet hour procedures in effect. This aircraft; along with the other one that didn't comply with the crossing restriction were both issued clearances based on the quiet hour procedures (I can't remember exactly who the other aircraft was; as I was not the controller who worked him). During the transition back to the normal; non-quiet operations; this crossing restriction was overlooked. There was no loss of separation; but this could have easily have been had there been a departure off of SFO.




Synopsis: OAK Tower controller reports of two aircraft that depart OKA and do not follow the SID restrictions and climb above crossing altitudes.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PWK.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PWK
ATC / advisory: Tower PWK
Second aircraft: Super King Air 300
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Chicago Executive Airport has an instrument approach to only one runway (RWY 16). So; when the winds are favoring runway 34; aircraft are asked to cancel their IFR prior to circling because of our proximity to ORD airport. If the field is IFR; C90 needs to protect for the circle with O'Hare's traffic. When I began working the Local Control position; winds were gusting out of the northeast at over 20 knots and aircraft were canceling IFR and circling to runway 34 with a ceiling of BKN011. An EA50 reported the cloud bases at 1;500 MSL. Our field elevation is 646 AGL. The one-minute ASOS observation indicated BKN009. The C90 North Satellite sector was informed that the field was IFR with a ceiling of BKN009. A SPECI transmitted indicating 01014G22KT 10SM BKN009.Aircraft X called on the RNAV RWY 16 approach. He was instructed to circle west for left traffic for runway 34. Aircraft Y called on the RNAV RWY 16 approach approximately 6 miles in trail of Aircraft X who had just begun his circle. Realizing standard separation would ultimately be lost if the scenario continued; I called C90 to ask for missed approach instructions for Aircraft Y. C90 gave me a 040-heading. While issuing the missed approach to Aircraft Y; C90 called on the shout line asking if Aircraft X failed to cancel his IFR. I reiterated to C90 that the field was IFR and canceling was not an option.When the weather is VFR and aircraft are canceling IFR prior to circling to runway 34; the aircraft either squawk VFR or controllers put the letter 'V' in the special designator area of the data block to signal to C90 that the aircraft is; indeed; now VFR. Neither of those things were happening since I called C90 to inform them of the field being IFR.  The Standard Operating Procedures at PWK require controllers to inform C90 when the field goes from VFR to IFR and vice versa. I would recommend that when we are doing this (while advertising the circle to runway 34) that we reiterate to C90;  'Field is IFR. You need to protect for the circle to runway 34.' or 'Field is VFR. Returning to canceling IFR for the circle to runway 34.'




Synopsis: PWK Controller reported an IFR aircraft that was thought to be VFR due to a procedure usually used in VFR conditions.
Date: 202011
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There is no social distancing and people consistently [are] not wearing their masks properly.  Management [is] making no attempt to keep lobby staff safe from COVID-19. There is no organization; customers don't know where to go; or what to do.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported individuals are not properly social distancing; nor adhering to face mask policy in the airport lobby environment.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: TRACON D21
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Climbing out of DTW on the MOONN 4 departure; DTW Departure stopped our climb at 9;000 FT. We were then cleared to 10;000 FT then cleared to 13;000 FT and 280 KTS. The last clearance was read back and DTW Departure could not hear us. We tried using COM 2 and departure still could not hear us. Other aircraft could hear us on both COMs. Soon DTW Departure could hear us again and we were switched to Cleveland Center on 134.25. We were not the only aircraft that Departure could not hear.The main threat was the inability to communicate with ATC. There must be a dead spot on 132.02 where aircraft can hear ATC; but ATC can't hear aircraft.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot flying the DTW MOONN 4 Departure reported a dead zone on TRACON frequency 132.02 while climbing from 9;000 FT to 13;000 FT.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C FLL
ATC / advisory: Tower FLL
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain and SIC (Second in Command) departed in a C208 amphibian; with no passengers. Aircraft arrived for a right downwind for Ft. Lauderdale International 10R and was second in line following a 700 series jet. On short final; tower cleared an A320 for take-off and immediately directed a go-around. SIC had the flight controls and added power and raised the flaps for the go-around. Captain raised the gear. Aircraft went through wake turbulence and then made a right crosswind for 10R. SIC turned downwind and added flaps; then right base; then final; with 30 degrees of flaps. Aircraft was landing again behind a jet and was cautioned clear to land; caution wake turbulence. When aircraft touched down; it smoothly slid on the runway. When stopped; Captain asked SIC to check and see if there was a flat tire. SIC looked at the indicator outside the aircraft; and there was a blue dot in the landing configuration; which indicates a water landing. SIC told Captain they had landed gear up. SIC and Captain got out and checked the aircraft for damage. No damage was found. SIC and Captain contacted for help and were able to jack the aircraft up and mechanically drop the gear. The aircraft was then towed to the hangar for further inspection.


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


Synopsis: C208 Amphibian flight crew reported landing in FLL with the gear up; following a go-around that was directed by ATC. During the go-around; the flight crew encountered wake turbulence from a departing A320.