elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201308
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: CAVU; 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on an ATP check ride; climbing out in CAVU conditions at approximately 800 feet per min and 138 KIAS; we had a near miss with an opposite direction B-737 on descent into the airport.  We were tuned into both Center frequency and local traffic frequency and heard no position reports from the 737.  There were no traffic alerts and no transponder target depicted.  When I saw the 737 I disconnected the autopilot and initiated an immediate descent.  I believe the main problem was that the jet did not make any position reports.  Also; lack of ADS-B coverage both in the area and on the other aircraft prevented me from being alerted to their position. Corrective action would be to increase the number of transponder transmitters through the ADS-B system so aircraft equipped with ADS-B type traffic avoidance systems will be alerted to transponder only traffic.




Synopsis: While climbing out of an uncontrolled airport the pilot of a PA31 initiated a descent to avoid an inbound; opposite direction B737.  The reporter had heard no traffic or position advisories from the inbound Boeing.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: FAT.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I issued Aircraft X a clearance to descend and maintain 13;000; aircraft didn't get the clearance the first time so I issued it again and apparently misspoke and told Aircraft X to maintain 11;000 and missed the read back. When I issued the descent clearance to 13;000; I put a temporary altitude of 13;000 in the data block and a hard altitude of 11;000 in for assigned. I guess when I reissued the descent clearance that may have been why I misspoke. Around that same time; I got a few calls from other aircraft and FAT approach called to tell me they switched runways to send Aircraft X direct ZZZ.I may have gotten distracted as well and didn't catch the mistake. The aircraft descended below the Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) that is 12;800 for a few seconds before they entered the area that the MIA is 11;000. When I observed the aircraft descending below 13;000; I told Aircraft X 'assigned altitude 13;000'. They didn't respond so I said it again and they said they were correcting. They climbed back up a little; but by then I was able to issue them the descent clearance to 11;000 because they were over the 11;000 MIA box.The only recommendation is to pay closer attention to clearances issued and listen closely for the read back.




Synopsis: Oakland Center Controller reported issuing an incorrect altitude; not catching the read back; then caught it as the aircraft descended below the Minimum IFR Altitude.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While conducting our flight; we received an aircraft that had pressurization issues repaired. During climbout; the aircraft would not pressurize; so we descended and utilized the QRH. The manual mode of pressurization did not work; we contacted ATC and descended to an altitude for passenger comfort. We selected flaps 9 and lowered the landing gear to burn off fuel. We coordinated with ATC; company; maintenance; and crew member for the return to ZZZ. We landed in ZZZ and returned to the gate. The manual pressurization did not work; and we lost the readout of the cabin pressurization; rate of descent; pressure differential. When we got to the gate; the manual dump button did not release pressure. It took 30 minutes to relieve the pressure to open the cabin door for passengers to deplane.Several threats: low altitude in busy environment; air return with large quantity of fuel to burn off; passenger displeasure; added flying to an already long day; delays for the next flight; unable to evacuate passengers in case of fire on ground and could not open the doors or windows. Passengers included small children and babies and elderly that lack of oxygen will affect sooner than adults.Our maintenance at [company] seems to be declining; I have flown more 'broken airplanes' in the past 3 months than I have over my 16 year career.


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


Synopsis: ERJ-145 flight crew reported a pressurization problem that resulted in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departed behind an A319 on Runway 26L; on rotation received momentary stick shaker. Held pitch; and speed was normal. At roughly 500 FT AGL encountered wake turbulence. The nose pitched up about five degrees; and then the airplane rolled violently to the left. Corrected with right aileron; and managed to bring the wings level. [We] continued climbing at V2+15 in an effort to climb above the wake. We encountered the same violent left roll three more times in rapid succession; and finally recovered at about 1;200 FT AGL.By the time we regained control authority; we had missed our right turn to SNUFY on the RMBLN departure. ATC inquired about our track. My First Officer very quickly informed the Controller that we had just recovered from a wake turbulence upset. We were assigned a heading to rejoin the departure. The rest of the flight was uneventful. When we checked on with ATL Departure Control; we were given a phone number to call upon landing to talk to the Tower supervisor. We did so; explaining what had happened. He was very gracious and apologetic and seemed very concerned about whether or not we were familiar with the new separation standards. I told him that we were. Apparently they are collecting data on incidents like ours and tracking trends. He didn't seem interested in pursuing it further.Clearly the threat here was wake turbulence and our proximity to the preceding traffic. Hopefully this incident will help ATC assess the effectiveness and safety of the new minima.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of an A319 on takeoff from ATL that resulted in multiple violent rolls at low altitude.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
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; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a VFR practice maneuver flight with a student; my student noticed something wrong with the controls during a clearing turn. I took the controls and noticed that the controls seemed to be stuck in the neutral position as well. I examined the cockpit controls and autopilot and determined it would be best to land straight ahead on a 270 heading using rudder to manipulate controls. I [notified ATC] and used flaps necessary to land on a road. After safely landing; we shut down the plane completely and exited to the back of the plane. We tried to deflect the ailerons multiple times on the ground with no result. Maintenance met us at the location and inspected the aircraft. After permission was received by the FAA; another pilot delivered the aircraft back to the flight school until the FAA could come and inspect it.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reported the flight controls were stuck in the neutral position resulting in a straight ahead landing on a road.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Forward Cargo Bay Door MEL prohibited loading bags into forward bay and placarded on inside and outside cargo door. [Company] ramp personnel was told in person by crew not to load bags into forward bay and did correctly load into aft cargo bay. Numbers uplinked and dowlinked for takeoff data sent to ACARS were incorrect stating bags were in forward bay. Numbers were inputted by flight crew correctly with bags in aft bay with correct takeoff data for actual operation.Incorrect uplink data from ramp personnel. [Company] ramp should verify uplink data to match correct loading position for accuracy.




Synopsis: ERJ-175 Captain reported correcting erroneous preflight cargo weights uplinked to flight crew during preflight in order to depart with accurate takeoff data.
Date: 201912
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: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We called ZZZ Ground Control from the alley for taxi. We were cleared to 'taxi to XXL via C; L; North Route. As we approached Taxiway C-10; westbound on B; a B737 made a left turn immediately in front of us at C-10 from Taxiway B. If we had not stopped as quickly as we did; there would have been a collision. We literally had to jam on the brakes. We made a radio call to Ground that 'apparently Airline X is waiting for Airline Y to pass in front of us.' An unknown voice (not ground) said 'yeah; you better.' I have never seen such unprofessional and dangerous behavior from a professional pilot. It is NOT OK to turn in front of a moving airplane (us); even if they had been cleared to the gate (which we didn't hear because it happened before we were on the frequency. Ground control apologized; but the Airline Y pilot is the one who nearly caused a collision. Ground didn't tell either of us to pass behind the other; but that doesn't make right to cut in front of another aircraft.Whatever you do to a pilot who cuts in front of another airplane. Unsafe and unprofessional. Period.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that another aircraft turned in front of them on the ramp and caused a critical ground conflict.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload; Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Software and Automation

Narrative: On a direct course/track to GARIC. All of a sudden the aircraft began to roll left. Disengaged autopilot in order to stop roll. At that time; it wasn't determined to be a flight control problem or navigation problem. Regained control of the aircraft and attempted to reestablish navigation to GARIC; but aircraft wouldn't hold course. Received a GPS downgrade message. Deselected GPS Navigation; forcing the navigation to radio updating. Reported the incident to JAX Center; and they acknowledged that they had received other reports of same. Later; ADSB faults were experienced. Other aircraft reported same. The GPS resumed normal operations as well as ADSB.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported GPS jamming.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Autofeather System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When we applied takeoff power; the takeoff was aborted due to the left autofeather not arming. We cleared the runway; canceled our IFR flight plan; and contacted Dispatch who transferred me to Maintenance Control. Maintenance Control and I discussed the problem and then we taxied back to the gate to have Maintenance look at the airplane. Maintenance Control had me run the airplane with the Mechanic to determine the problem and to verify the fix. The airplane had been written up earlier in the day for an autofeather issue. That maintenance item was cleared by our company mechanics who 'ops checked' it. This is a reoccurring issue. I think that we as a crew couldn't have done anything different. One of my concerns while the Mechanic was troubleshooting was the possibility of ferrying the aircraft to a maintenance base with an inoperative autofeather. There has been a great debate for as long as I have been here regarding the legality of this. The limitations section says that the autofeather must be operable for all flights; and armed for takeoff; climb; approach and landing. I question the legality of issuing a ferry permit to allow for a ferry with an inoperative autofeather since it goes against the limitations. I am under the impression that a ferry permit is allowed to be issued for inoperative equipment but it is not designed to get around a limitation. Other limitations (such as the cracked windshield) have specific guidance for operating with a ferry permit. I would love to see some clarification on this.




Synopsis: BE1900 Captain reports failure of the left autofeather system to arm as takeoff power is applied and the takeoff is rejected. The reporter wonders if it is legal to issue a ferry permit in this situation when aircraft limitations require the autofeather system to be operational for all takeoffs and landings.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We pushed back for an all night flight transcontinental flight; thunderstorms extensively over the Midwest. Prior to taxi; ATC rerouted us. We sent the reroute to Dispatch via ACARS. Shortly after departure I requested an updated Flight Plan and Fuel Plan from Dispatch; but for the entire 5 hour flight never received those items on what was a significant reroute. In flight planning I had spoken over the phone with the Dispatcher for our Sector XX and asked for information on if direct en route fixes would save time and gas (frequently late at night ATC offers such clearances); and was told 'I don't have time for that.' Two nights earlier I had asked for such operational information and received the same reply. Now; if we can no longer count on Dispatch to provide us with updated Flight Plan's; Fuel Plan; or operational information; what do we need Dispatch for? This isn't the only time in the past 8 months when I have needed help from Dispatch and not received it. Once I tried to contact Dispatch for help with a maintenance deferral on taxi-out for an all-night flight and finally just went to Maintenance Control directly since Dispatch never responded; and made the evaluation myself as to whether the item was a dispatch item. Whether this lack of Dispatch support is a function of training; personnel; or staffing; I really don't care. Either we have a full service; one stop shopping Dispatch facility or we don't. And if we don't; I won't expect any assistance from Dispatch. I'd like a reply to this.




Synopsis: A B757 Captain requested revised flight plan information after ATC revised the transcontinental routing; but Dispatch failed to responded because they did not have time for such requests.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During extended downwind vectors at 5;000 MSL on the arrival for RWY 22L yesterday; we experienced a TCAS RA that resulted in a close call with either an aircraft or drone. We were in ALT when we received a 'TRAFFIC; TRAFFIC' TA. ATC called out traffic ahead at 12 o'clock; type and altitude unknown. We looked for the traffic. The aircraft was on autopilot and leveled off. The traffic then disappeared from the screen and we thought we were in the clear. Approximately 10-15 seconds later we received an RA 'CLIMB; CLIMB'. When I looked down at the ND (20 mile range) the symbology showed a RED target at -01 directly in front of the airplane and to the left side of the nose. I have received RAs before; but this one was very close. I immediately disconnected the autopilot; went TOGA and started a climbing right turn. We were configured at Flaps 1. The FO told ATC 'TCAS RA'. I quickly came out of TOGA and restored normal auto flight when the 'CLEAR OF CONFLICT' advisory sounded. We resumed the arrival and no aircraft parameters or limits were exceeded. Shortly thereafter; we heard [air carrier] Flight XXXXX also report a TCAS RA.




Synopsis: Airbus 320 captain reported encountering a aircraft or a drone via a TCAS Resolution Advisory warning.