elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approximately a 10- to 15-mile final; we encountered moderate wake turbulence from an Airbus 320 4.5 miles in front of us. The aircraft pitched down slightly; and rolled slightly to the right and back to the left for several seconds. While the aircraft was being held in a left bank; we went full scale deflection on the localizer and the autopilot downgraded to CWS-R. After exiting the wake turbulence; we leveled off; and turned back to the localizer. DEN Final Approach monitoring also mentioned we were left of course and to correct. As the Pilot Monitoring; I told them what happened. Once we coupled up with the localizer; we resumed our descent (we were slightly high on the glideslope). We continued the approach with no further problems. Preventative Measures: Not quite sure! We were on the glide slope with proper spacing behind a similar sized aircraft.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to DEN 4.5 miles in trail of an A320.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The aircraft called for a clearance and I thought he was in an area where I could issue 12;000. When I tracked him up and identified him the aircraft was not in MSAW [Minimum Safe Altitude Warning] alert status at 12;000. As soon as I gave the clearance it started flashing MSAW and I climbed him and amended his clearance to proceed direct MOD reaching 130. I should have asked him if he can maintain his own terrain or obstruction clearance until reaching 13;000 or asked if he could maintain VFR until reaching 13;000. It would have been a good reminder if there was some type of alerting when the aircraft is tracked up. I was going based on memory and realize that I should have pulled up the MIA [Minimum IFR Altitude] boxes prior to issuing any clearance.




Synopsis: ZOA Controller reported identifying an aircraft; but not realizing it was below the MIA until the MSAW went off.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: High Tail winds
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW; Class E D10
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW; TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were filed to fly the JFRYE 1 RNAV Arrival beginning at HYDES into DAL.  We got repeated 'steep descent after JTROE' or 'MASTY' messages at various times after the zero fuel weight was entered in the FMC and in-flight. Prior to TOD; we uploaded ACARS winds into the FMC and those winds were pretty much as advertised; from five o'clock from 57 to 40 knots throughout most of the arrival.  Mental math confirmed we would have problems flying the arrival as published at several points on our way down.  The problem became the most problematic right after passing JTROE.  The First Officer (FO) had done a fine job at getting the airplane back in VNAV PTH prior to JTROE and airspeed was right on.  As soon as we passed JTROE; we went from right on path to over 1;200 feet high at which point the FMC reverted to VNAV SPD again.  The only way we could have made the 10;000 feet restriction at GREGS would have been if we had been 30 to 40 knots above the published 250 speed there. We were discussing the need to get ATC relief when regional approach told us to descend to 5;000 feet so that eliminated the threat. Regardless of 737 variant; it appears the descent gradient for this arrival is too steep with even relatively benign tailwinds. Please test this arrival in the simulator. If it is 'un-flyable' then we should revert to the GREGS Arrival where the descent gradient is less constraining. The altitude constraints at both JTROE and MASTY appear too high. We are placing our Pilots at unnecessary risk if this arrival has problems of the magnitude we saw last night.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports being unable to maintain the descent path on the JFRYE1 RNAV arrival to DAL with a 40 knot tailwind. ATC provides relief without being prompted.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C BNA
ATC / advisory: Tower BNA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the Pilot flying (PF). We join the right down VFR.  'ATC APPROACH CONTROL' clear us to the visual approach. I disconnect the auto pilot; I turn base flaps 30. We switch to tower frequency and ATC tower advised terrain. Tower says confirm 'do you have the airport insight?'  'Yes we do have the airport insight we are on the visual approach.' ATC say; 'OK; you are clear to land.' Looks like ATC tower was not aware that we are on a visual approach until we contact him. The crew was aware all time of the situational awareness and terrain obstacle.




Synopsis: An air carrier crew on a BNA daylight visual was questioned by ATC about a low altitude alert but the runway was in sight and was aware of a terrain obstacle.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During landing with left crosswind [a] student put in right rudder during the flare but released as the wheels touched down. This created significant side load on the right main landing gear as the aircraft started to turn completely sideways to the left. The instructor took control of the aircraft however the aircraft was already sideways and he was unable to safely bring it back to the right and the aircraft departed the runway into the grass. No visible damage done to airplane. Keeping rudder correction in during the entire phase of landing during a crosswind is essential. Student understands mistake made and more crosswind training will be accomplished.




Synopsis: During a crosswind landing a student pilot lost control of the aircraft and departed the runway. Instructor took control but was unable to prevent the runway departure. No aircraft damage was found.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LEX.Airport, KY
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: LEX Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) lost the modem link to ZID's computer; our shout lines and our commercial phone lines. We could not receive flight plan information or coordinate with any adjacent facilities. A similar occurrence happened [last month] when an airport TELCO room lost power. LEX ATCT was willing to operate in a limited capacity utilizing our facility cell phone. The number to directly access the controllers (recorded line); given to us by ZID; did not work. Subsequent testing later found the number works.Why does LEX not have an operating redundant system concerning our incoming phone lines? There were no delays reported with this outage. There were significant delays during the [previous] outage. Do we even have a redundant system in place for our incoming phone lines?Have airways facilities check our system regarding our incoming phone lines. Repair/replace/install the system to make sure we have a backup to our existing equipment to provide uninterrupted service at LEX.




Synopsis: LEX Tower Controller reported landline outages that occurred on two different dates. Reporter wanted to know why there is not a redundant system concerning the phone lines.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C SFB
ATC / advisory: Tower SFB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the pilot flying and followed all standard company procedures during takeoff from Runway 9L shortly after a single engine aircraft had departed the same runway. The pilot of the single engine aircraft had turned crosswind on a north bound heading and seemed to be no factor for us. At approximately 700 or 800 FT of altitude after takeoff we received a TCAS alert. I immediately scanned outside with the intention of acquiring the previously departed airplane visually. A split second later; I saw on the TCAS that the aircraft I had believed to be the reason for the TA was not the reason at all. Another aircraft was showing on the TCAS in our exact location. Simultaneously; I received a Resolution Advisory (RA); I started an aggressive climb; and was called by Tower and told the position of the other aircraft (right side of our airplane). I maintained 160 knots and a nearly 5;000 FT per minute climb. I went through the originally assigned altitude of 2;000 FT up to 2;700 FT before being told by Departure Control to continue climb to 5;000 FT. I never had a visual on the airplane that caused our RA. I cannot say with complete certainty; but I believe that the aircraft that caused our RA had departed from Runway 9C. The close proximately of 9L to 9C makes this occurrence one that is likely to be repeated. We were unaware that any airplane had departed 9C or that any aircraft other than the one that had just taken off Runway 9L before us was in our departure path.




Synopsis: An air carrier First Officer reported receiving an RA from another aircraft shortly after takeoff on 9L at SFB. Reporter cited closely spaced runways and ATC technique as contributing factors.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Prior to boarding; company gate agents informed the crew we would be receiving a wheelchair passenger who had a motorized wheelchair. They indicated the passenger would require aisle chair boarding. When the passenger came down; the A FA (Flight Attendant) informed me she would be storing his wheelchair battery in the closet. I requested to see the battery as I was not aware any wheelchair batteries could be accepted as carryon baggage. Upon referencing the [Hazardous Material Manual] discovered the battery I was presented with did not explicitly state compliance with CFR 49 173.185. I immediately consulted my Dispatcher who concurred with my assessment of the HAZMAT/DG (Dangerous Goods) situation. I then referenced the procedures for checking said battery; which does not specify compliance with the above CFR.I informed the Gate Agent the battery was non-compliant; and upon her inability to provide necessary packaging material I went to the ramp to request assistance from the ground crew. A company Supervisor was called; and we obtained tape and plastic bags necessary to isolate and package the battery to the requirements of the [Hazardous Material Manual]. We took a two minute delay in order to accomplish compliance and the flight continued without any incident.I am filing this report for two distinct reasons. The first is that this item was sent down the jet bridge with no question as to its acceptability. Furthermore; upon speaking with this passenger; he indicated he flies on [company] flights weekly and has never had his battery denied acceptance as a carry on.The second issue I have is that I would much rather have a lithium ion battery intended for a wheelchair in the forward closet than stowed in a cargo bin protected only by a plastic trash bag sealed with a piece of duct tape. We now have means (heat resistant gloves/lithium ion containment bags) to combat a potentially catastrophic fire in the cabin. I understand the battery in question had not met regulatory requirements for in cabin air transportation; but shouldn't that make it more of a candidate for cabin transit?


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: EMB-170 Captain and Dispatcher reported having a Gate Agent configure the wheelchair's lithium ion battery correctly for air transport prior to departure.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying the HHOOD RNAV STAR into PDX. Passing 9;500 MSL we got the 2;500 foot call just east of SHAFR intersection. We were IMC in light rain showers. ATC vectored us to runway ILS 28R and cleared us to 5;500 MSL. After another turn ATC cleared us to 5;300 MSL. Around 5;600 MSL we got 'Terrain; Pull Up' call Captain; pilot flying performed the escape maneuver and we climbed to 7;700 MSL and notified ATC. ATC said the highest terrain in our area was 4;300 MSL. We reported to Maintenance possible radar altimeter problem. Maintenance said they had had several write-ups about radar altimeters recently.


Second narrative: We never did get a true 2500 Radio Altitude Callout while on approach. Nor did the Radio Altimeters ever display altitude on the MFD during the Approach and Landing.


Synopsis: The flight crew of an A320 executed an EGPWS escape maneuver upon receipt of a 'Terrain; Terrain; Pull Up' warning. As they were beyond SHAFR and descending in full compliance with the constraints of the HHOOD RNAV STAR and ATC's altitude clearances beyond SHAFR at the time they wrote up the event as a false warning.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Other VFR Traffic Pattern
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Both planes were staying in the pattern. Aircraft Y requested Runway X and Aircraft X requested Y. Aircraft Y departed first and I put him in left traffic to avoid the departure of the Aircraft X; when Aircraft X departed I put him in right traffic at the time initially thinking if I put him in left traffic that he would quickly catch up to Aircraft Y and become an issue. I called traffic to the Aircraft X about Aircraft Y and he did not have him in sight and asked the order to the field when I told him he would be number 1 to the field with both aircraft about midfield downwind at this point and Aircraft X; 500 feet above Aircraft Y. I then called traffic to Aircraft Y about Aircraft X and he had him in sight. I gave Aircraft X clearance for the option at this point on Runway Y and then to give a little more spacing I told Aircraft Y to extend his downwind and that I would call his base for Runway X. As Aircraft X was descending and turning base he flew towards Aircraft Y who was extending downwind and Aircraft Y maneuvered to the left to avoid him and Aircraft X told me he was going around.  After the incident I talked to a fellow CPC and a Supervisor and found a few things I could have done better to have avoided that situation and to have dealt with the conflict as it was arising.For starters putting Aircraft X in left traffic would have been the better option rather than right which caused the planes to be going nose to nose towards each other. Also when Aircraft Y had traffic in sight I should have told him to maintain visual separation. I also should have changed the sequence and extended Aircraft X downwind while I let Aircraft Y make a short approach and come in #1 to keep Aircraft X on the outside of Aircraft Y's flight path. I also learned a little more about the characteristics of Aircraft X such as its speed in the pattern and how it descends and makes a much more rounded turn from downwind to final rather than squared turns to base and then again to final.




Synopsis: Tower Controller in training reported an NMAC between two aircraft in the traffic pattern.
Date: 202201
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Arriving into IAH on the DRLLR 5 Runway 26L. Descending on a downwind between 5;000 and 4;000 past ZOEEE; we received a RA flag on the Captain side two separate times. It stayed illuminated for approximately 5 second both times. In the turn to capture the localizer for 26L at approximately 2;500 ft. we got a RA flag on the First Officer side; again; for approx 5 seconds. No other indications or anomalies were noted.


Second narrative: While flying the downwind leg of the DRLLR 5 STAR into IAH (Runway 26L) after passing ZOEEE intersection and a descent clearance to 6;000 feet the Captain stated he was seeing an amber RA (Radio Altimeter ) flag flash on his PFD. I cross checked my PFD and didn't notice any flags. It happened to his Radio Altimeter a few times. While turning base leg abeam GRIEG intersection I noticed my RA (Radio Altimeter) flash amber. I only noticed it happen once with my RA. The flags only appeared for a few seconds each time. ATC was informed. We didn't notice any other issues with the Radio Altimeters for the remainder of the approach. NOTAMs regarding the new 5G and AMOC (Alternative Methods Of Compliance) were reviewed during the briefing as well as during the flight. It says that the B737 has AMOC but I am not exactly sure what that means to the pilot. What are our AMOC's and how do we use them?


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported encountering possible 5G interference while inbound to IAH.