elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Location: LIRN.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C LIRN
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Weather at the time was reported as CAVOK; however it was sunrise and the sun was at the eye level which hid the runway from the crew. ATIS was not reporting the haze layer at the airport. We had set up for the ILS Y Runway 06 into LIRN. Approach had given us direct to ISKIA; the initial Approach Fix for the ILS approach 06. Approximately 10 miles from ISKIA Approach gave a left turn for an intercept. After completing the turn for intercept and still descending to get on profile; Approach gave us another turn for the intercept which put us higher and closer to the airport. Approach at this point cleared us for the VOR Runway 6; this expedited the approach set up which never was accepted by the FMS. Both crew members went to green needle and used the chart for the step downs; since approach had placed us in at a close range of the airport we were high for a normal landing even though we were fully configured; however it was not a stable approach. I; as Pilot Flying; decide to go-around; upon the Pilot Not Flying telling the Tower we were going around we were told to fly 'published missed' at this point we did not have the VOR published missed loaded into the FMS. Tower told us to contact Departure; switched over to Departure and he told us to maintain 4;000 feet and fly heading 330 degrees. Turning to the heading of 330 and trying to look at the FMS I allowed the altitude to exceed the 4;000 feet to 4;400 feet. Departure told us to maintain 4;000 feet and I immediately returned the aircraft to 4;000 feet. Combinations of errors were present. As the Controller started giving us the turns toward the runway and with us being high; I should have told the Controller; we'll proceed to ISKIA and complete the ILS approach which was loaded into the FMS with the proper fixes for the approach.




Synopsis: A corporate jet crew executed a go-around on final to LIRN after ATC vectored the aircraft too close for a stabilized approach and sun location prevented early visual acquisition.
Date: 202011
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Bus overcrowding every day. The lack of buses and social distance is not followed.  We have told the company numerous of times regarding to inability to social distance. Their response is 'do not take the bus; wait for the other bus.'




Synopsis: Technician reported social distancing concerns in overcrowded buses.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C172 checked in for Runway 16L about 5 miles northwest of the airport at about 7;000 FT; I cleared him to land and noticed that a C560 was also inbound; but had not checked in. It looked like the C560 was going to descend through the C172; so I reached out for the C560; he reported the Cessna in sight and at this point I thought they were going to hit. I asked the C560 if he was going to hit the Cessna and he said no and told me he was inbound for Runway 16L. I told the C560 to change to the Runway 16R and cleared him to land. I then told the C172 the traffic was a Citation right on top of him descending now for the parallel runway. It was my understanding that the Cessna was on a base leg entry which means the TRACON should sequence all aircraft behind him. The TRACON said that he was given a downwind entry so they didn't have to sequence but there was no indication in the scratch pad or any form of communication that the aircraft was on a downwind entry. In my opinion; even if the Cessna was on a downwind entry it was too late and the traffic situation had already developed. I feel like there was nothing I could do to separate the two aircraft considering the Citation's speed. On initial contact the C560 reported the Cessna in sight which tells me he was given traffic before he was switched. If the Controller issued the traffic; he should have pulled him off his approach for re-sequencing.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a traffic pattern conflict when allegedly the TRACON's sequencing resulted in one aircraft being on top another on final.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Tower, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: Tower IAD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were initially assigned the JCOBY 3 departure out of IAD. When cleared for takeoff from runway 30 we were assigned heading 320. At 400 ft I turned to heading 320. In the turn we had GPWS 'too low terrain'. I went TOGA and we climbed out with no other terrain indications. Being distracted by this I went off course of the departure and ATC asked if we were on the departure. We replied we were correcting to it. At altitude I reviewed the departure and saw that instructions are to climb to 820 ft before turning. Once ATC gave me the heading on takeoff I mentally did away with the departure and this was my error.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported receiving a GPWS alert during departure after turning too early.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MCI.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MCI
ATC / advisory: TRACON MCI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the designated arrival and in a NAV descent I saw traffic on the NAV display because an RA was imminent. Questioned the controller. He stated 'Turn left immediately and descend to 8;000 feet' at 200-300 feet separation visually acquired the aircraft. The TCAS had us at least 500 feet under him when he passed overhead? The ATC controller on 127.22 will have to be asked this question.




Synopsis: A pilot reports of not being issued traffic by ATC and observing traffic on the Navigation Display. The pilot questioned controller. The controller turned and descended aircraft. The pilot reported aircraft was 200-300 feet away when he spotted it and the aircraft passed 500 feet over the top.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the GIBBZ2 RNAV Arrival into Dulles; approach control called the winds at IAD gusting to 57 knots. Potomac control continued to call the winds at 57 knots at IAD with two additional reports. We had no alternate. I had a conversation with dispatch before leaving about the winds. After talking with dispatch; I was assured that there were no significant weather issues at IAD for our arrival (winds were forecast to gust to 45 knots). I asked dispatch to update us if there were any changes in the IAD weather. Dispatch never advised us on the changing weather at IAD. I exercised my emergency authority and [advised] Potomac and we decided to divert to Richmond; because it was south of the thunderstorm line over IAD and BWI. The decision was made at 7.7 LBS of gas remaining and 29 miles from IAD. We were 80 miles from RIC.We sent an ACARS divert message to dispatch. We never received any NOTAMS or field information for RIC from dispatch. I did not have time to call dispatch; because of the urgency of the divert; last minute change in winds at IAD during the arrival and fuel status. We called RIC on the radio; acquired the ATIS and coordinated the divert. We landed uneventfully at RIC with 5.6 LBS.




Synopsis: Upon arrival into the airport area weather rapidly changed the feasibility of landing at the destination airport. Flight crew diverted to a nearby field with a critical fuel state.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DWH.Tower, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D DWH
ATC / advisory: Tower DWH
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound from the South and cleared to land on runway 17R. An amphibious aircraft; was doing touch and go's to the sealane with left traffic. A P28a was also in the left closed traffic pattern for runway 17L. Aircraft Y was inbound from the North requesting runway 17L. I cleared Aircraft Y to land and gave him the traffic for Aircraft X landing the parallel runway. I then noticed the Sea ray had turned an early crosswind and was pointed directly at the P28a. I quickly gave the traffic call and he said he had the aircraft insight.  I then gave him control instruction to insure safety and that the two aircraft wouldn't hit.  While my attention was diverted to the traffic calls Aircraft X had exited the runway and started to taxi. I didn't tell him 'exit the runway and stop; contact ground control on 121.8' as management is now requiring. Ground control noticed Aircraft X continuing to move and told Aircraft X to stop. Aircraft X was just past the hold short line for runway 17L. I told Aircraft Y to go around. He said he'd like to land still. I approved a long landing.  During this time my supervisor started yelling at me asking if I told him to stop. I thought I had and I told him so. He then asked if I got the readback and I wasn't sure. The supervisor started yelling more and making me very nervous. He was saying that I needed to treat the stop instructions like they were hold short instructions and that I am required to get the read back. I had also been working with shorter breaks and with longer times on position to try to allow fellow controllers to make it to a meeting.I think the fact that we are telling pilots to do something they are already required to do to insure safety is a good thing. However if there is more imminent situation that should be taken care of first. I also think that the supervisor who was plugged in and listening should've been more aware.




Synopsis: DWH Tower controller becomes confused when he doesn't follow facility procedure of telling landing aircraft to turn left and stop. Front Line Manager (FLM) yells at controller and distracts him from remembering if he told the aircraft to stop. Aircraft passes a hold short line becoming a conflict with an arrival to another runway.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
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: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My schedule included flights into ZZZ on [multiple days.] Although I had never operated into ZZZ myself before; I had seen the trip in our [dispatch package] many times. Yesterday; I was informed that ZZZ was designated as a Regular airport for the B757 but only an Alternate airport for the B767 in our Ops Specs. We operated the B767 into ZZZ for three flights before this oversight was found and [Company] had the designation changed to R for the B767. I had always thought of the Ops Specs as something to refer to if the 'plan changed.' This was a great lesson for me to see the importance of referring to the Ops Specs for every flight even those built into [Company's dispatch packages]. It would be helpful to include pertinent information in our [briefing] to save time.


Second narrative: Aircraft X has scheduled operations into ZZZ on [multiple days]. I have operated into ZZZ prior to this and was familiar with the operation. The legs flown into ZZZ during this period were operated as scheduled. Upon receiving an update to the Ops Specs; upgrading ZZZ from an alternate to a regular airport for the B767; I was alerted that it had previously not been a regular airport for the B767. Having already operated a B757 into ZZZ and consistently operating both B757 and B767 into multiple airports I did not check Ops Spec to ensure ZZZ was a regular airport for both B757 and B767. An added section to the [briefing] listing the aircraft types and if the airport is a regular or alternate would be an easier way for crews to access this information prior to a flight. In addition; when lines are built there should be a requirement to ensure the aircraft scheduled for the flight is legal to operate.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported landing at an airport not authorized in the company Ops Specs.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Push Back
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our Tug Driver temporarily stopped our pushback short of the normal pushback distance due to the close proximity of an aircraft that had pushed back from an adjacent gate. We soon felt a shudder and suspected that we may have been struck by the adjacent aircraft. We asked the Tug Driver if we had been struck and he confirmed our suspicions after conferring with a Wing Walker. We shut down the right engine; which had been started during pushback and were towed back into the gate.Wing Walkers and Guides should remain in the vicinity of aircraft to clear the area before an aircraft taxis. Guides would be dismissed by flashing the taxi light upon our intent to taxi.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported their aircraft was contacted by another during push back procedure.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: STL.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower STL
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We were cleared to taxi to Runway 12L via Fox by Ground Control. After switching to Tower we were cleared for takeoff 12L. Takeoff clearance was received while taxiing on Fox between Fox and Sierra. Captain missed the turn onto the runway (12L) at Sierra and crossed the 'hold short' lines for Runway 24. Runway 24 was not an active runway. Tower pointed out the error and re-issued takeoff clearance for 12L. Captain then made a 180 and returned Fox to Sierra for takeoff.Contributing factors 1. Poor quality of runway makings (chevrons) for Runway 12L. 2. Poor quality of airport diagram on Jeppesen for iPad.


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


Synopsis: While taxiing on STL Taxiway Foxtrot; a flight crew was cleared for takeoff on Runway 12L at Taxiway Sierra but missed the turn onto Sierra and entered Runway 24.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During climb passing 23;500 FT experienced moderate wake turbulence from preceding aircraft. Slow to advise ATC following recovery who inquired about heading change. Advise ATC regarding any course or heading changes regardless of cause or magnitude.


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


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported a track deviation occurred during recovery from a wake turbulence encounter.