elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OQU.Tower, RI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D OQU
ATC / advisory: Tower OQU
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On a VFR flight from EWB to 08R our almost direct route crossed into the Class D airspace of OQU; but remained south of the 10nm outer ring of PVD airspace. At about 3nm before reaching the Class D limit; I contacted OQU tower requesting clearance to transit the Delta airspace at 2000 ft.; southeast to southwest.ATC response was that the airspace above 1299 MSL was the under the authority of PVD approach. I explained that my path of flight will take me south of the PVD airspace limit but ATC still refused to give me clearance. On the chart; the Class Delta airspace 5nm limit clearly extends south of the 10nm ring up to 2500 MSL.My suggestion is that if the airspace south of the 10nm ring is indeed not the responsibility of OQU by MOA with PVD; then the chart should be aligned to show that.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported error in VFR Charts.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower EGLL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: ATC assigned 160 KTS to 4 DME. The Captain (pilot flying) slowed to 155 KTS after a wake turbulence encounter at approximately 6 DME. ATC queried our speed; we reported 155 KTS and explanation. They chastised us and there was no problem. Normal landing. Aircraft behind us continued normally.




Synopsis: A330-300 First Officer reported slowing below assigned speed on final at EGLL following a wake vortex encounter.
Date: 201208
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flew the FMS Bridge Visual to 28R at SFO. First Officer was flying. Landing was uneventful. While holding between runways to cross 28L; Crew noticed that VHF 1 was set on Tower and Approach Control with Approach still selected. Neither crew member remembered acknowledging landing clearance. Tower Controller made no comment while clearing the crew to cross 28L. Crew called Tower after block in and Controller said everything was fine. Crew was distracted by light aircraft traffic calls on final.




Synopsis: A B757 First Officer reported landing without clearance on SFO Runway 28R because the crew were distracted by ATC calls about light aircraft traffic on final.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff; I (FA 2) smelled a strong odor of dirty bleach and [experienced] a headache; dizziness; tightening of throat; nausea and burning eyes. After level off the smell dissipated. Still felt very nauseated; headache; dizziness and tightness in throat throughout the flight. On descent the same smell continued with same symptoms. FA 4 started feeling nauseated and headache. After landing I could still smell the odor and ask FA 1 to come to the back of airplane and midway through the cabin she started feeling nauseated; headache and dizziness. Captain put the event in the logbook and the plane was taken out of service. FA 1; 2; and 4 went to clinic and then hospital for blood work. After 5 hours blood was taken. Results were normal. The blood work should have been drawn a lot earlier.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant reported feeling ill after being exposed to fumes in the cabin. Other flight attendants reported similar effects; and three of them went to the hospital.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATIS had winds 040/7 360v150. We were approaching 28 for departure when Tower called traffic on four-mile final; gave us the winds and cleared us for takeoff. I heard the winds; but they didn't register in my consciousness. We took off; and used a lot of the runway. On climb out above 10;000'; we asked each other about the winds; and pieced together that they were stronger out of the east than we had realized. We got the new ATIS; which had just changed; and copied winds of 070/10G16. Entering that into the [flight computer]; we saw that was 13 knots of tailwind; and out of limits.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported taking off with a tailwind out of limits after having been given the latest winds by the Tower.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared to descend to 12;000 ft. and read back cleared to 12;000 ft. Through 13;000 ft. Approach told us there was a low altitude alert and that we were cleared to 14;000 ft. not 12;000 ft. like we read back.




Synopsis: CE560E pilot reported getting a low altitude alert from ATC.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Supervisor / CIC; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This could be called a systemic problem; as it happens all the time. I filed it as an event since you can specifically look at this event. Aircraft X departed and did not tag up. The Tower controller called to coordinate the 'no tag'; but failed to recognize from Clearance Delivery; Ground Control and Local Control that the flight plan had timed out completely. They launched an aircraft with no flight plan in the system. I called the tower to ask them if they could re-enter the flight plan as they had all the information in front of them via the flight plan; they told me 'we don't do that'. So in one of the most critical phases of flight; we have to ask the IFR commercial jet; where he is going; off one of the busiest airports in the country. This is not only embarrassing; but unprofessional that a tower is unwilling or worse incapable of entering a basic flight plan into the FDIO. This happens daily and is unacceptable and unsafe.Force Tower controllers to DO THEIR JOB. Entering clearances is basic air traffic and should be mastered before they work any actual air traffic.




Synopsis: TRACON Supervisor reported that Tower allowed an aircraft to depart IFR without a flight plan on file.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ADM.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ADM
ATC / advisory: Tower ADM
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a VFR flight plan; we were cleared the VOR-B approach at ADM. Tower directed the crew to report 2NM SW of the airfield. The PNF contacted tower at 2NM. Tower directed us to maneuver for runway 17. PF told the PNF to ask to continue the approach because we had not reached the missed approach point. The tower then said to remain west of runway 17. We continued because we were not going to cross runway 17. The PNF told ATC that we needed just a little bit more. We did not receive a clear response. ATC didn't direct us to avoid overflying runway 13/31; nor were we told to turn. After the MAP; we climbed to pattern altitude and we were told by ATC to set up for a left base to runway 17. [Another aircraft] was just crossing the threshold to runway 13 at the time of the event and we had the aircraft in sight. We made an uneventful full stop on runway 17. In the chocks we were told to contact the tower. Clear communication is essential. To improve ATC's ability to sequence traffic; we should have told the tower on our initial contact that we needed to fly to the missed approach point. Secondly; when ATC's response to our request to continue; wasn't clear and due to the time constraint; we should have discontinued the approach. Lastly; the controller had an opportunity to resolve his concern with us overflying runway 13/31 by being directive; i.e. 'turn right; do not overfly runway 13/31.'


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


Synopsis: Light twin flight crew on a VFR flight plan reported flying the VOR-B to ADM and being instructed by the Tower to report 2 NM SW. At 2 NM the crew is instructed to maneuver for Runway 17 but do not cross it. The crew wants to fly to the missed approach point but a clear response from the Tower is not received. An aircraft was landing Runway 13 at the time of the missed approach.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Airliner 99
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending on approach PF (Pilot Flying) called for gear down before landing checklist; I complied with the command; placed the gear lever down; and accomplished the checklist to the item Gear down - 3 green/verified. At this time I noted that the gear down and locked annunciation for the left main landing gear was not illuminated but the gear unsafe light was extinguished. I notified the PF and we elected to recycle the landing gear handle. The gear annunciator remained in the same condition when recycled. We advised Tower of a need to conduct a missed approach to run a checklist and requested that they observe the landing gear position during a low approach which they granted. Approximately 300 feet before above TDZE (Touchdown Zone Elevation) the landing gear annunciator became illuminated. This change was noted and I requested landing clearance from the Tower; informing them of the updated circumstances. Landing was continued and uneventful.Noted during checklist itemFailed connection for landing gear bulb causing failure to illuminateAs we were descending below 1500 ft. I delayed checklist usage. I recycled the landing gear as a technique from training and requested the low flyby from Tower to assist in troubleshooting gear position. When the landing gear annunciator illuminated I requested landing to prevent further incidents from occurring during a prolonged flight.


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


Synopsis: Airliner 99 Flight crew reported that; upon extension; one of the main landing gear initially failed to indicate down and locked.
Date: 201512
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The new pilot directives regarding air flow on the airbus fleets are making pax and FAs sick. The cabin is stuffy; we feel sweaty; clammy; and lethargic. Both pax and FAs are developing headaches and feeling noxious; sometimes even to the point of getting physically ill. Although I personally suffer from migraines; they rarely occur at work but they have been coming on more frequently since this new procedure is taking place. The ventilation is not adequate and it is very difficult to work in such an environment.We deal with enough safety hazards that we should not have to have to vehemently argue with pilots to get proper air flow and O2.




Synopsis: An Airbus Flight Attendant complained about passenger illness; migraine headaches; cabin stuffiness as well as feeling sweaty; clammy; and lethargic following a company mandated air conditioning system inflight airflow management policy change.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RCTP.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower RCTP
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared to taxi 23L holding point; which is S10; the end of the runway. We were then cleared to line up and wait on the runway. When we were cleared for takeoff; the Captain advanced the power and Runway awareness and Advisory System (RAAS) advised 'ON TAXIWAY ON TAXIWAY'. We were not on the taxiway so take off was continued normally. As we approached S9 (the displaced threshold) RAAS then said approaching RWY 23L! There is a displaced LANDING THRESHOLD; but not for takeoff. So RAAS/EGPWS database may be incorrect for this runway. I have never heard that before utilizing any other displaced threshold for takeoff!Possible bad programming in the RAAS. If it is programmed correctly; then crews need to be aware they will receive the warning because it is very disconcerting; even in VMC. Imagine doing a low visibility takeoff and having this occur! Fix RAAS so that it doesn't nuisance alert thinking the runway is the taxiway! Or alert the crews so they know what to expect. Or disable RAAS until it's fixed!




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain experiences a Runway Awareness and Advisory System (RAAS) warning 'ON TAXIWAY ON TAXIWAY' while attempting to takeoff on Runway 23L at RCTP from the S10 taxiway. The warning is ignored as the runway has a displaced threshold for landing that does not apply to aircraft taking off.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Speed 160 KTS altitude 9;700 FT; Flaps 3; landing gear was lowered; ECAM resulted showing gear not down and locked. ECAM completed and gear was lowered manually. Normal landing and braking ensued. Taxied clear of runway and parked for eventual tow-in. Nose wheel steering inop resulting from manual gear extension.




Synopsis: An A319 Captain reported manually lowering the landing gear after the ECAM alerted the gear not down and locked when the gear handle was selected down. The nose wheel steering was inoperative so the aircraft was towed to the gate.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: melting snow/slush
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Pushed back from gate in ZZZ. Taxied to deice pad and received Type I deicing; then proceeded to taxi to Runway XX for takeoff. Most; if not all of the taxiways at ZZZ were still coated with significant melting snow/slush all the way to the runway. We took off; and as Tower handed us off to Departure; we had the triple chime with a 'gear disagree' aural. NOSE DOOR OPEN and GEAR DISAGREE warnings were present on EICAS. Departure told us to continue climb to 17;000 [feet]; at which point we [advised ATC about] the gear in order to take vectors and work on the problem. We ran the QRH for the GEAR DISAGREE Message. It called for putting the gear back down; which cleared the messages. We attempted to bring the gear back up; and we got the GEAR DISAGREE message again. We then ran the QRH for the GEAR DISAGREE Message. After turning on the pumps in step 2; the nose gear came up after approximately 10 seconds and all associated messages were cleared. We completed the checklist and cancelled the [advisory]. ATC kept us as an [priority] aircraft due to the nature of the problem and their own procedures/requirements.We diverted to ZZZ1; and held briefly to burn fuel and prevent an overweight landing. We landed and taxied to the gate without further incident; and called Maintenance and Dispatch.Snow and ice lodged in the nose gear assembly is the most probable cause. Ensure deice crew sprays gear as well as the rest of the aircraft if able. Push ZZZ to do a better job of clearing taxiways of snow. Consider using as an example/provide training on issues like this during winter ops training.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate airport due to nose landing gear retraction issues following takeoff in snowy and slushy conditions.