elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on a vector and a climb to 13;000. ATC called traffic ahead and I could see on the TCAS that if I continued to climb to 13;000 there could be a conflict. About 12;500; I decreased our climb rate trying to avoid a conflict with traffic that we could not see visually. I did finally see the aircraft which passed off our right side about the same altitude. This was somewhere between 12;500 and 13;000 FT. I don't know the lateral separation. We received a TCAS RA telling us to descend which I followed. It was a rather aggressive RA calling for about 1;800 FT per minute descent. During this maneuver; we noticed another target on our left. I'm not sure if the RA was for the first or second airplane. The planes appeared to be in a loose formation. I think they were military but not sure. The first plane that I saw was small. Neither the Captain nor myself saw the 2nd one because my attention was directed inside the plane at the VSI directing the RA. I don't know how close the 2nd plane was. We advised ATC we were responding to a RA. ATC seemed surprised. After the RA was complete; I started the climb once again to 13;000. We then switched frequencies and continued the flight.


Second narrative: The First Officer was the pilot flying and after we switched over to Departure we were given an intermediate altitude of 7;000 FT. Eventually we were given a climb to 17;000 and switched over to Center. Climbing north; Center gave us another intermediate altitude of 13;000 while climbing through 11;800 because of conflicting traffic. The TCAS system had the conflicting aircraft crossing our path from left to right heading in a southeast direction. I put 13;000 in the altitude window while the First Officer slowly approached 13;000. I noticed the incoming aircraft was lower than 13;500 and we received a Traffic Advisory. A second aircraft about a mile or two behind the first target gave us a Resolution Advisory (RA) and the First Officer descended abruptly because we were commanded a 1;500 FT descend to avoid the approaching aircraft. I announced to Center we were descending due to the RA and once clear we climbed back up to 13;000 without any more conflicts. We only had a visual on the leading aircraft and the rest of the flight was uneventful.


Synopsis: MD83 flight crew reports responding to a TCAS RA during climb to 13;000 FT caused by military aircraft; in loose formation; below 13;500 FT.
Date: 201405
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were told the flight would be 50 minutes when in actuality it was 37 minutes. We all got our service out but had not collected trash; restocked; or closed kits when we heard the final descent chime. We hustled to get as much done as possible but we were unable to collect all the trash. We quickly sat down in our jumpseats and I noticed my galley was not completely secure. I thought I had a few seconds to get over there and back. I didn't want anything to block that exit in case of an emergency on landing. I miscalculated the time and ended up landing on the floor in the galley. After we slowed down and began to turn; I secured myself in the jumpseat. It was just a miscommunication. Maybe prioritize better. Losing 13 minutes on a short flight is a lot of precious time.




Synopsis: A B737 flight attendant crew was told the flight was 50 minutes and so did a full service. When the Final Descent Chime for a 37 minute flight alerted; a Flight Attendant prepared to land but had not secure her galley cart; so she got up from her jumpseat and landed on the galley floor.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: When Aircraft X checked on; I told him PVD Tower and Approach were closed; the airport was uncontrolled; and advise when they had the weather and NOTAMs. He said; 'I have em.' I told him to expect a visual approach; and he responded that they were expecting a visual approach to Runway 23. I told him when I gave him the clearance; I wouldn't assign him a runway for the visual approach; but that he could set up for 23 if he wanted. Later; after issuing cancellation instructions; making sure he had the field in sight; etc.; I cleared him for the visual approach and observed him making a turn toward the north (I assumed setting up for Runway 23). I told him to change to advisory frequency. Later; I noticed him turning away from Runway 23 on the radar; but I assumed it was because he was too high and trying to lose some altitude. Then I noticed him level at 2;600 and turn to the southwest. PVD airport operations called up and said that Runway 16/34 was closed and they had another air carrier just try to land on it. He said the closure NOTAM was for tomorrow. I was really confused; I told him I knew it was closed long term. He said; no; the closure for Runway 5/23 and I told him I knew that. We chatted some about how I thought the pilot was setting up for 23 (and airport operations said he thought so too); and then all of a sudden it looked like he was changing runways. I told airport operations thank you. Aircraft X ended up canceling a few minutes later (I didn't talk to them about what happened).I don't know what to recommend. We seem to be having all kinds of problems with PVD and I have no suggestions.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller reports of an aircraft going to an airport that was uncontrolled and questioned the pilot about NOTAMS and weather. The flight was sent over to UNICOM and the aircraft was observed by the Controller descending; then what appears the aircraft moved to a different runway. The Controller then received a phone call from the airport operations stating the aircraft tried to land on a closed runway.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.TRACON, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
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 B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken

Narrative: As Aircraft X was climbing through 6;500 feet on departure; the pilot reported a drone about 2;000 feet below the aircraft. Not sure what the FAA can do about this problem.




Synopsis: CLT TRACON Controller was informed by a flight crew that a drone passed about 2;000 feet below the aircraft as they were climbing through 6;500 feet.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While I was in cruise; I found a message on the comm of a comm failure. I start to troubleshoot it and tried to get a signal on my phone. I found out I have electrical failure. I put the landing gear down and the emergency extension. I felt the gear going down but I can't see the lights to confirm it. I had my mind ready that they might fail and I was ready for a forced landing since I'm not sure it's locked. When I landed the main gear was not locked.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported an electrical failure resulted in loss of all communications and collapse of the landing gear when landing.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
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: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DTW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D21
Second aircraft: A330
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff about 3 miles behind an A330; I felt this was unnecessarily close as we had only two aircraft waiting for takeoff behind us. I was slow to hand the controls to my First Officer (FO) in order to gain separation but after takeoff at about 1;000 feet we encountered wake turbulence resulting in about 38 degrees roll right followed by about 50 degrees roll left with almost full opposite lock on the yoke. Shortly thereafter my FO regained enough airflow to recover the encounter; I notified ATC and the flight proceeded without further incident.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence shortly after takeoff from DTW in trail of an A330 that resulted in up to 50 degrees of uncommanded roll. Reporter stated he felt ATC spacing could have been more generous.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the descent; the Captain and I both noticed a smell similar to formaldehyde. We began to notice it at approximately 15;000 FT and continued to smell it through the descent; landing; and taxiing in. We had noticed the same smell on the descent on the previous leg. The cabin crew did not notice any smell. The Captain did not think we needed to write this up since neither of us was experiencing respiratory stress or watery eyes. I am submitting this report because I have had a headache since this flight and it is now almost 48 hours later. I rarely get headaches and this one has not gone away after using Excedrin. I am concerned that the smell we experienced may be the same as the 'sweaty gym sock' smell caused by TCP in the synthetic oil. I suspect the cause of the smell may be from the bleed air from the engine. The APU was off at the time. Since the cabin crew did not notice the smell that leads me to believe the problem may be coming from the left pack. We tried turning the left pack off when below 10;000 FT and the smell decreased somewhat. This plane needs to be monitored to see if there is a problem.




Synopsis: A B757 First Officer had a headache two days after a flight on which a formaldehyde odor was detected during descent on two consecutive flights. The smell may be the gym socks TCP odor.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Dispatch
When detected: Other Post flight completion
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was notified by the Company [10 days after flight] that a dry ice shipment of 1042 kg was not included in the weight and balance on Aircraft X. To the best of my recollection; that dry ice was included.  I operate Aircraft X quite frequently and it almost always requires a Dry Ice Exception.  I reviewed the Flight Plan Release for that flight and confirmed that Dry Ice Supplementary Procedures was listed.  Also; to the best of recollection; I was notified of Dry Ice Supp. Proc. when I initialized ACARS as well as on the ACARS Weight and Balance. [Caused by] oversight on final paperwork. [Suggest to] have a separate acknowledgement line on the ACARS Weight and Balance for dry ice only.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain reported company notification of Hazmat documentation error ten days after flight operated.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EKO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While descending being radar vectored and level 14;000 feet; ATC asked if we had EKO in sight. We responded affirmative.  Then we both heard 'cleared for the visual approach EKO.  We were in VISUAL conditions had the terrain and the airport in sight; started a descent then received a warning from ATC that they were getting a low altitude alert.  We advised that we were in visual conditions and had the terrain in sight and continued our visual approach.




Synopsis: Light Transport aircraft Captain reported ATC issued a low altitude warning during visual approach to EKO airport. Captain replied that airport and terrain in sight. Flight executed an uneventful landing.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departing; during climb through 14;000 FT at 290 KTS (normal speed assigned by ATC) the master warning came on with a 'Gear disagree' EICAS warning message. The nose gear EICAS indication also showed a red box. We requested a present position hold to assess a malfunction; which we were given along with a level off at 16;000 FT. We completed the appropriate QRH procedure which called for a landing at the nearest suitable airport. It also indicated the possibility of the nose wheel steering being inoperable after landing. We decided [departure airport] was the nearest suitable airport and notified ATC of our intentions and declared an emergency as a precautionary measure. We then notified our Dispatcher via ACARS of our intentions to return. I requested the Dispatcher notify our Local Maintenance Station of our intentions to return. The Dispatcher's response was 'I have notified Maintenance' and we were to call via phone on the ground and nothing more. We then planned for an overweight landing of 49;000 LBS and landed normally with no warnings or cautions present. We taxied to the gate unassisted. Our present position hold was in an area of high density departing traffic and had to be reversed by ATC in order for us to be out of the departure corridor. This increased our workload while completing the QRH procedure.Once on the ground; the company A&P mechanic who came to the plane told me he had no knowledge of our intention to return to the airport. He also said he was half way home when he got the phone call from Maintenance Control. This tells me that my request for Local Maintenance be notified of our return and our Dispatcher's response to the ACARS request went unheeded.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported problem with nose gear. They declared an emergency and returned to departure airport.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CDB.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF CDB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Service
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft X landed on the runway for taxi to parking. A construction vehicle drove across the runway in front of the aircraft rolling out. The truck was not in radio contact with the FSS. The pilot asked why a truck pulled out in front of him and the point of contact for the construction vehicles advised the truck should not have been there. This is the last of an unknown; but substantial number of similar occurrences since construction began.Address contract violations permitted by the airport Crew Foreman and require published construction procedures be adhered to.




Synopsis: A Flight Service Station Specialist reported receiving a report from an aircraft that a construction vehicle entered the runway while they were landing.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Training in progress on Freeway sector. We had discussed the new change coming in the 7110.65 Chapter 5 regarding opposing base legs and ways to mitigate the issue earlier in the session. My trainee had Aircraft Y on a base leg of 170 degrees and 4;000 feet and had just cleared for the VA via a 230 heading (all in compliance with directives) to Runway 26. The opposing final had Aircraft X northbound at 4;000 feet; airport in sight and planned to turn to final but got distracted by coordination with the ARC about a light aircraft inbound from the southeast. Visual separation was applied by both my trainee (the Aircraft Y) and the opposite final. Aircraft X was cleared for the VA Runway 25L; but overshot their final. Ensure offset base leg headings (I instructed my CPC-IT to listen for the other finals base headings); i.e. 180/010. Make it a point of emphasis to have the finals talk to each other more until these new .65 procedures settle in. It will be a slight learning curve; but my CPC-IT seems to grasp the concept and we will consider this a high priority for the next sessions.




Synopsis: P50 Controller describes a new procedure for the arrival sectors. One aircraft overshot their turn to final causing a conflict.