elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Climbing out we were advised of light occasional moderate between FL250 and FL310 with good rides above FL310. We were advised as such just after climbing through 10;000 ft. FO (First Officer) then called cabin crew to sit down with seat belts fastened until advised further. The encounter started out as light. Around FL260 the conditions became more constant and moderate. Around this time pitch mode; continuous ignition and turbulence mode were selected. Climbing through FL270 the autopilot seemed out of sync with the needed corrections and airspeed deviations were becoming greater. Autopilot control inputs were becoming significant with yaw deviations such that the brick was almost completely out to the side. Around this time shaking became enough that it was becoming hard to read the displays. When conditions worsened I disconnected the autopilot (FL280) as the airspeed deviation was increasing to an unacceptable degree with general autopilot over actions. The autopilot was acting as if it was out of phase with the needed inputs. Climbing through FL310 conditions improved and the autopilot was re-engaged with turbulence mode on. We verified with the cabin crew that they and the PAX were ok. We also told them to remain seated until we gave them the all clear. During the encounter we told ATC that the conditions were more than moderate. I hesitated to call it severe until after the encounter and discussed the events with the FO. Once the severe determination was made ATC was notified; Dispatch notified; and the condition of the cabin verified to be ok. At no point was the aircraft ever out of control and the predominant conditions were moderate with some instances that may be called severe. Cabin was in good spirits upon deplaning the aircraft.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported encountering severe clear air turbulence; and taking manual when the autopilot seemed unable to maintain control.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT; Tower FDK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Bonanza 36 was holding at the EMI VORTAC waiting for another aircraft executing the ILS23 approach at FDK to cancel IFR. After the first aircraft cancelled IFR; he recommended that due to the ceiling and visibility that the BE36 consider trying the GPS to Runway 05 instead. The BE36 concurred and was vectored for the GPS05. FDK Tower opened at 0700L advertising Runway 23 as the active runway. FDK Tower was advised that the BE36 was already being vectored for the GPS05; the Tower responded they were unable because the airport was below weather minimums for the GPS05. The BE36 called FDK in sight and cancelled IFR and proceeded VFR to the field.  FDK was reporting IFR conditions at the field and told the BE36 that they were unable to allow him to land at the field VFR. The BE36 picked up another IFR clearance and requested the GPS05 at FDK; as he could see the airport from the air and was unable to see the field from the other direction. Again; FDK denied MULRR sector authorization to conduct the approach. After nearly an hour; the BE36 had to divert from FDK and went VFR into KDMW. There is no reason that the active runway at FDK could not be changed from Runway 23 to Runway 05 as the wind was calm and there were no other operations being conducted at the airport. FDK simply would not authorize the GPS05 approach because the airport was below weather minimums for the approach.  However; controllers are not allowed to deny a pilot an approach request. As Pilot in Command; the pilot of the aircraft has all pertinent weather and approach information and ultimately the call to shoot a particular approach rests with the pilot. If he wants the approach; it is the controller(s) responsibility to let the pilot conduct the approach; that is why missed approach instructions exist and are published. Not to mention the fact that the pilot of the BE36 could see the field while on the final approach course for the GPS05 approach into FDK. It was the Tower Controller's unwillingness (and lack of understanding of rules regarding approaches) that directly led to the BE36 being delayed over an hour before finally having to divert to an alternate airport.




Synopsis: PCT Controller described an unsafe condition when FDK Tower denied a pilot requested GPS05 approach due to weather minimums; the pilot cancelling IFR after observing the airport.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ2; Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After departing ZZZ for ZZZ1 on an IFR flight plan; at about 500 feet AGL and 2 miles from the airport I switched frequency from ZZZ Tower to ZZZ2 Center before being asked to switch frequency by the tower. I have not flown IFR for more than one year due to COVID. I recently completed a Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check; but this was only the second IFR cross-country flight since then (the first was from ZZZ1 to ZZZ a few days earlier); and the first departing from a towered field. This led to my improper ATC communication procedure.




Synopsis: Single Private Pilot reported; after a year away from flying due to COVID-19; not following proper IFR communication procedures after departure.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ORD
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on 27L; taxiing in eastbound on B approaching A6; an RJ on J almost hit us as it approached A6 from our 5 o'clock position. It didn't even slow as we converged.  I could not see it from that direction and was unaware of its proximity until the F/O said 'Stop! This guy is close!'.  It passed by about 10 feet by our starboard bow. Queried Ground Control and was told the RJ was supposed to follow us.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reports a near collision with a Regional Jet at the A6 and J Taxiway intersection. Last second detection by the A321 First Officer may have prevented a collision. Ground Control had instructed the Regional Jet to follow the A321.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 33
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wingtip
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Coming in on the last landing of the night after doing pattern work; we were working on power off 180 and short field techniques; after about 6 patterns we decided to make the last one a full stop and practice our crosswind technique. In the pattern I briefed [the student] that I would take controls when we were close to the runway environment to show her a float using ground effect if she needed to use it in an event of a power off landing. We were on final and crossed the runway threshold when I took over controls we were approximately 50-75 feet when we crossed the numbers; I then started to correct for the crosswind adding right rudder and left aileron as I got closer to the ground. I started pitching up in the flare to demonstrate a controlled stall over the runway using ground effect to my advantage; suddenly I found myself in a higher than normal pitch attitude which cause me to stall slightly higher than anticipated; this caused my right wing to fall suddenly and this is what made it make contact with the runway. It was a hard landing but I thought I had landed on the mains; it wasn't until we came to a complete stop on taxiway alpha that I saw the right rear wing tip had been bent up slightly. We were then told to taxi back to the ramp by tower; I was checking controls and they seemed operational. I did a closer inspection of the tip and found contact marks on outer mid tip as well as the rear tip. I believed I misjudged the actual height above the runway which caused me to stall and let the wing drop.




Synopsis: A flight instructor reported that while working on power off 180 and short field techniques in a Beechcraft BE-33; the pilot found himself in a higher than normal pitch attitude which caused the plane to stall; resulting in the wingtip contacting the runway.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During initial climb above 5;000 feet. MSL and 250 KIAS experienced Number 1 Engine Fire Light and associated warning tones. Reduced Throttle 1 to idle and light went out. We completed Engine Fire Severe/Severe Damage checklist and [advised ATC] and returned to [departure airport] landing XXR.


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


Synopsis: MD11 flight crew reported that during climb a Level 3 ENG1 FIRE alert sounded along with aural warnings causing them to return to their departure airport.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Corporate
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

Narrative: VFR departure out of SDL. Positive control by PHX ATC departure. Controller asked what altitude was requested. Responded 15;500. Controller responded back. I heard climb to 15;500. I readback cleared 15;500. Controller later said the clearance was to 5;500. Very similar numbers may have caused error.




Synopsis: A corporate First Officer had an altitude deviation during departure from PHX airport.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying the HLYWD1 arrival into LAX; LA Center cleared us to descend via. The First Officer; pilot flying set 12;000 in the altitude window and managed the descent. The aircraft started down at 1;000 FPM. At the top of the hour I; the pilot monitoring; went off to get the new ATIS and load new info into the performance page. ATC called us and told us to climb and maintain FL240 till BRUEN. I looked up and we were at 23;300 about 15 miles short of BRUEN. We had checked all the crossing restrictions; they were all correct. The aircraft was descending in managed mode. I don't know why it descended below 240. I copied a phone number and called LA Center at the gate. He advised me that there was no loss of separation.Pilot flying and pilot monitoring did not do a good enough job monitoring the aircraft's descent.Do not rely on the aircraft to always make crossing restrictions. Both pilots have to monitor all the time.


Second narrative: Yet another Airbus busting its altitude restriction on the profile descent (descend via). This is a known issue with Airbus aircraft deleting the upcoming altitude constraint when the aircraft is in level flight already at the bottom of the upcoming altitude window on the arrival.The pilots were issued the 'Descend Via' and descended early; missing the 240B300 altitude window.Do not allow Airbus aircraft to fly in the National Airspace System (NAS) until they fix this ridiculous issue with their FMS. The system is setting its pilots up for failure; and this is becoming a daily occurrence. It is an ongoing major safety issue. So far we have gotten lucky and there have been no other aircraft involved; but sooner or later; we will not be so lucky. It is ridiculous that the Airbus engineers cannot get this straight.


Synopsis: A321 Captain and Los Angeles Center Controller reported that the Airbus did not comply with a crossing restriction.
Date: 202202
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Batt V 23.2 prior to start; initiated start and Batt V dropped to 13.4V but recovered quickly through 14V. Continued scan of VEMD; T4 rising normally; oil pressure check; and when scanning back to Batt V; noticed T4 needle moving quickly. Moved start selector to OFF and immediately noted OVERLIMIT DETECTED on upper VEMD. Accessed Maintenance pages and noted T4 of 871'C.Batteries that are cycled through show good voltage on preflight / before start checks; but how they will respond to a starter load is an unknown. Future first flight of day starts during cold weather / cold aircraft will be Start Pak assisted.




Synopsis: Eurocopter AS 350 pilot reported low battery voltage caused an engine over temperature on start. The engine start was discontinued and maintenance was notified.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: During approach to Runway 9R at PHL; Crew was assigned 4000 ft. altitude and vectors to intercept localizer to Runway 9R. After descending and establishing at 4000 ft. and the assigned vector; ATC instructed us to descend [to] 3000 heading 120 to intercept the localizer. As we descended from 4000 to 3000 around 3200; a GPWS alert of 'TERRAIN' came on. Pilot Flying disconnect AP (Autopilot); seconds after that another GPWS alert 'PULL UP' was received; PF (Pilot Flying) initiated escape maneuver and initiated climbed. Pilot Non-Flying contacted ATC and advised we had a GPWS alert and we were climbing. ATC asked want altitude do we want to level off; PF said 4000 and ATC assigned us 4000. ATC asked if we can continue the approach from that altitude to which PF indicated that yes we can intercept the LOC and GS. PF continued the approach hand flown to intercept the ILS and landed uneventfully.


Second narrative: Vectors ILS 9R; NIGHT/IMC; outside ASOCI on heading 120 approximately 3200 ft. MSL we got a terrain caution message; almost immediately followed by a terrain warning with 'pull up' command. The Captain turned off the autopilot and immediately began a full power climb. At this time we were getting ATC instructions for the approach; which I then was able to tell ATC we were climbing due to terrain warning. At 4000 ft. the warning had gone away; ATC asked if we could accept 4000 ft. Once established at 4000 ft. ATC asked if we were good to shoot the approach. We were given vectors and intercepted the localizer; then the GS at 4000 ft. and had an otherwise uneventful ILS approach and landing.We are unsure why we would have gotten the terrain caution or warning. We were on vectors and well above the obstacles in the area with a normal descent rate.


Synopsis: CRJ-700 Flight Crew reported receiving a Ground Proximity warning on approach to PHL.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: For landing I sat in XR jumpseat instead of XR foward facing jumpseat. The passengers in the second to the last row were coughing and sneezing and I was concerned for my health and safety. I felt that I needed to social distance. I was unaware that moving to the XR jumpseat for health reasons violated an FAR.In circumstances such [as] this; we should have provisions in place to protect not only ourselves; but our loved ones at home.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported moving to an unassigned jumpseat for social distancing purposes. The move conflicted with FAR regulations.
Date: 202007
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending into ZZZ; the Controller was very difficult to understand. It sounded like he was wearing a mask while attempting to communicate. Every instruction we were given I had to verify. Some instructions were more or less difficult to decipher than others. Due to the divisiveness associated with the mask issue; I chose not to remark on the radio about not being able to clearly understand all of the instructions. I simply verified each instruction while clearly annunciating.Inability to understand ATC instructions appears to be a Safety threat. I have no way of knowing if the Controller was wearing a mask or not; but all other transmissions from other aircraft and other Controllers were clear. I have heard that controllers may begin to wear them; but that is unverified. In the event that this is the case it presented a clear barrier to communication; which seems to pose a significant Safety threat.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported difficulty understanding ATC instructions possibly due to the Controller wearing a face mask.