elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While giving a skills check a LR60 went missed approach from an ILS Runway 19 circle to land Runway 24. A Gulfstream was on departure roll on Runway 24 when the LR60 advised the Tower he was going missed. The trainee advised the LR60 to fly heading 220 and maintain 1;500 FT. The trainee called N90 Departure and advised departure that the LR60 was on a missed approach and wanted to know how he wanted him. We coordinated for the Gulfstream to fly heading 260 and the LR60 to fly heading 240 and maintain 1;500 FT. When we tried to issue the Gulfstream heading 260 he switched frequency on his own. We then called N90 departure and asked if he had the Gulfstream which he replied yes. We then turned the LR60 to a 240 heading to maintain 1;500 FT and contact Approach. N90 advised of a possible loss of separation with the LR60 and a EWR arrival. Change the airspace so that the EWR arrivals and TEB missed/go -arounds do not conflict.




Synopsis: EWR Controller described a loss of separation event between a EWR missed approach aircraft and N90 traffic; noting that airspace changes are need to prevent conflicts between EWR arrivals and TEB missed approach aircraft.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Plane took off; normal call outs. Around 2;000 feet cabin started rapidly pressurizing. Crew leveled off and requested current heading and altitude; which was given by ATC. We maintained 3;000 feet and ran QRH and dumped the cabin. We returned to the departure airport with no other events. Maintenance flight should have been done before a repo to a live leg.




Synopsis: Cessna 560XL pilot reported returning to departure airport after experiencing loss of cabin pressure.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Portland north Sector called to tell me that Aircraft X was planning to cancel IFR for 4S2 and to [give] Approval Request Direct to 4S2. I approved the Approval Request. The data block shows the aircraft will be at 7;000 ft. Aircraft X checks in on my frequency level at 6;000 ft. I was startled by this information because the minimum IFR altitude is 6;800 ft. Aircraft X did look like he was still on T276; so I thought maybe that was an acceptable altitude on the T-route. I checked and the T-route was 6;500. So I climbed Aircraft X to 7;000 ft. and then coordinated this with Portland North. I then asked the pilot if he was still on T276 and he said affirmative. So; that was confusing information.I recommend remedial training to the Portland controller on the MEAs on T276 and the Portland/Seattle LOA.




Synopsis: Seattle Center Controller reported that an aircraft was handed off below the MIA; resulting in CFTT.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 40
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was performing a closed-pattern training flight with a student pilot at ZZZ. I was in contact with Tower.On the final leg; Tower advised Cleared to Land XXR; land long for X-2 (taxiway). Student pilot correctly read back instruction and landed between the approach end of XXR and taxiway X-3. Upon landing; Tower instructed 'Exit at X-3'; which the student pilot read back correctly. Student pilot applied heavy braking to exit at X-3 as instructed.Aircraft Y was holding short of XXR at X-3; and as our aircraft began exiting on X-3 it became clear that there would not be enough space to exit at X-3. At this time; Tower instructed our aircraft to 'Stop right there'; which we did. Tower instructed Aircraft Z on final for XXR to go around; and instructed us to taxi to X-2 and exit the runway. I read back the instruction; and affirmed that we had been instructed to exit at X-3. Tower controller disagreed and reprimanded student pilot and instructor. In summary; Tower provided incorrect instructions to aircraft which were properly read back followed; causing an aircraft on short final for landing to go-around; and for two aircraft on the ground to become close to each other.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported ATC issued taxi instruction that created a ground conflict.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Hail; Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was R-side during the event. We had just come out of holding and I was sequencing aircraft for arrival. The weather had been called to all aircraft established in holding and I was calling it to another aircraft when Aircraft X checked on. I assigned Aircraft X a heading for sequencing; when he was able to fly it reference the weather; but I hadn't called the weather yet. I took care of another couple of tasks and came back to reiterate the heading to Aircraft X since it didn't sound like understood the first time and; since I normally call weather to a pilot on initial check on (or as soon as it become pertinent); I forgot that I hadn't issued it to him.When I issued the aircraft a turn and further descent through an area that was depicted as moderate precipitation on my scope he reported 'moderate to extreme turbulence with hail'. Aircraft X was clear of other traffic; so I continued the descent but left the aircraft on that heading because it looked to clear the depicted weather the fastest. I queried whether there was any damage or injuries; but was told that none were noted at the time.I had issued the weather to every aircraft before and every aircraft after; but missed Aircraft X because of other sequencing and coordinating duties I needed to take care of as well.I need to develop some sort of system to identify when I don't issue weather immediately to an aircraft; maybe highlighting or some other mark to identify the aircraft to draw my attention.




Synopsis: ZHU Center Controller reported being distracted and did not advise an EMB-175 flight crew of weather on the scope. Aircraft entered an area of moderate to extreme turbulence with hail.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
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
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing to 9;000 feet; Captain began leveling off at 8;500 feet instead of 9;000 feet. He increased our flight level change speed to 130; and began reducing power; even though we were well below temperature restrictions for climb. He said he was trying to keep his airspeed up. I knew we needed to maintain 500 fpm unless we advised ATC; but was afraid of speaking up after earlier incidents where he certainly hadn't appreciated my input. Captain was under the impression that the moment we hit our cruise altitude; our restrictions on ITT temp changed. He didn't think we were allowed to keep climb power in for 30 or so seconds after leveling to get our airspeed. Instead; he had the ridiculous idea to slow our climb to 100 fpm so he could be at a higher airspeed upon reaching cruise altitude and immediately bring the power back upon reaching 9;000 [feet]. A language barrier and poor training are likely the cause of that. 8;500 feet had VFR traffic coming head on. ATC vectored us for the traffic; then scolded us; but did not issue any punishment. Someone needs to explain to this man that the engine won't blow up if you observe climbing phase restrictions on ITT for 30 seconds after leveling off. These are company numbers; POH allows for even higher. As a very low time First Officer; I have no idea what to do in these situations. Captain complained about the Controller after the incident; and claimed he was being a jerk. [Captain] took no responsibility for the situation; and will likely go on to get himself and a poor First Officer a pilot deviation.




Synopsis: C208 F/O reported an airborne conflict occurred when the flying pilot reduced his rate of climb approaching cruise altitude.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Severe weather; aircraft were deviating around; we had weather corridors over active military airspace in order to allow us to keep aircraft out of the weather. ZLA Supervisor called and said that he needed to restrict LAS arrivals below FL280 so ZLC controllers would be forced to choose a different route so that ZLA had more time to descend aircraft into LAS.I cannot believe how messed up this thinking is! The weather was severe and aircraft at all altitudes were not flying on the normal routes. The Supervisor was trying to force us to put the aircraft in a dangerous situation; or put the controllers in a compromised situation where we would have had an airspace deviation in order to make things a little easier for his controllers.A safe solution would have been for flow control to reroute aircraft around sectors 44 and 46 since they were unable to fly the routes and it put their controllers in a more difficult situation. That would be a far better decision and safety would not have been compromised; however; we are just little old ZLC and I've been told by our Traffic Management that our needs are secondary to other 'bigger' facilities.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller reports of deviations due to severe weather. Front-Line Manager from another center requested Controller's change routes of aircraft inbound to LAS. The ZLC Controller felt as though he was being forced to put aircraft into compromising situations where they might end up with airspace deviations. Reporter thought it would have been better if the Traffic Management Unit re-routed aircraft around the sector.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Other Traffic Pattern
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flight instructor on an aircraft checkout flight with an ATP rated student. We had landed and were about to takeoff from Runway 19 planning to enter the VFR traffic pattern for touch and go landings. Just prior to taking the active runway we heard a transmission from an aircraft identifying itself as [aircraft Y]. [Aircraft Y] announced that they were NW of the airport and were going to overfly the field to the SE at 2;000 FT and then enter the traffic pattern for Runway 19 (the Runway 19 traffic pattern is a left hand pattern and is to the east of the runway). The student made a takeoff from Runway 19 and turned to the downwind leg at the pattern altitude of 1;500 FT. We made the standard radio transmissions turning crosswind and downwind. At about the midfield position the student saw a Cessna 182 on a collision course with us at our altitude and on a reciprocal course. He immediately began a descending left turn to avoid the other aircraft. I spotted the Cessna just as my student was initiating his turn. We passed within 100 to 200 FT both vertically and laterally from the other aircraft. We did not observe any evasive maneuver by the Cessna. The Cessna then left the pattern to the SE and reentered the downwind wind leg of the landing pattern for Runway 19. Both our aircraft landed without further incident. Subsequent radio conversation revealed that the Cessna 182 was in fact [aircraft Y]. They seemed to be unaware of the conflict that had taken place.




Synopsis: DA40 Instructor pilot with student departing Runway 19 reports a NMAC with a C182 at pattern altitude and opposite direction mid field downwind. Evasive action is taken by the student pilot; narrowly missing the C182 which does not deviate. The C182 pilot had announced overflying the airport with intentions of entering the traffic pattern for Runway 19; but had entered right traffic for Runway 01.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Icing; Rain; Turbulence
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: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While descending on the arrival from the south in to EWR; we were given an altimeter setting for PHL of 30.56 by ZNY. We then completed our descent checklist and verified the altimeter setting we were given with each other. The weather was deteriorating all on the east coast and we were in the thick of it. Turbulence; icing conditions; rain; and layers of clouds were all around us.Around 9000ft we were handed off to NY Approach and were given; what we thought we heard; an altimeter setting of 30.60. When I checked on I gave the controller my altitude descending through and what we were going to be leveling at. We met all crossing restrictions on the arrival and leveled off at 8000ft. We were cleared down to 3000ft and were cleared for the 4R approach.During the approach we were getting rocked by the turbulence and had to add to our approach speeds because of the now reported gusty wind conditions on the surface. We broke out around 700ft AGL with a significant crab due to the winds. Landed without any complications. It was upon our after landing clean up; and checklist; that we realized our altimeters were reading 900ft high. Both of us could not believe this and; after we were parked at the gate and after the parking check was complete; talked it over and tried to figure out where we went wrong.We were also trying to figure out why ATC never queried us on our altitude. The whole time we were on with approach there was an [foreign] flight that was tying up the frequency with the controller trying to set up a 'practice' ILS IIIB approach. What it comes down to is that I should have double-checked the altimeter setting on the D-ATIS with what ATC was telling us. This is something that I know will never happen again.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reports the altimeters were set such that the altitude reading was higher than actual.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAV.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pilot had just completed a touch and go and entered right traffic [for another landing]. The winds were reported 250 at 7 kts. The approach was stable and crosswind correction technique (right wing down and left rudder) was used a couple hundred feet above the ground to align the longitudinal axis with the runway. The aircraft longitudinal axis remained aligned with the runway centerline through flare and touchdown; but after touchdown the aircraft started to yaw to the right. Pilot is unsure if the aircraft became momentarily airborne. Pilot momentarily considered attempting a go around and applied full power; but immediately changed mind and pulled power back to idle as the aircraft was already at the edge of the runway. Aircraft departed the right side of the runway and spun 180 degrees in the grass with the nose pointing north. The aircraft engine was shut down and Tower was informed of the excursion. The pilot was not injured and the aircraft appeared to have only minor damage to the nose landing gear. The propeller and wings did not strike the ground. Initial inspection showed that the nose landing gear fork was bent and the nose wheel fairing was cracked. Upon review/discussion of the situation with my flight instructor a couple hours after the incident we concluded the following items could have potentially contributed to the runway excursion:- Potential excessive speed in the round out leading to either bouncing/floating or the nose coming off the ground and the airplane weather vaning into the wind without appropriate left rudder being applied as needed. - Potentially removing crosswind correction (left rudder) upon landing- Potentially did not apply additionally needed left rudder crosswind correction due to a gusting windPotential Learning Points: - The ATIS reported crosswinds were below what had been previously practiced; but crosswinds had not been specifically practiced in almost 5 months. - Request winds from Tower in case they have changed from ATIS reported winds.- Anticipate the need to continue flying the airplane after touchdown.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported loss of directional control on landing roll that resulted in a runway excursion.