elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201811
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 E Super 21
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I had a Carbon Monoxide alert in the cockpit. Initially I descended to 6000 feet and opened the vents. Then got light headed and [notified] Center. Then I got vectors to my divert airport and opened the door and side window for ventilation. I got really light headed with the Carbon Monoxide but was able to fly an ILS and land.




Synopsis: Mooney 20 pilot reported a carbon monoxide alert and becoming lightheaded led to a diversion.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was the CA/LCA on the flight.  First leg of trip with new CA student.  I was PF in the right seat; acting as F/O.  On descent into DEN on LAWGR arrival.  Turbulence was forecast for descent to DEN below FL200.  Fasten seat belt sign was on and F/A were briefed about turbulence and completing their duties early.  We were about 1 min from making PA for the FAs to take their jump seats.  DEN Center had cleared us to descend via. Appropriate altitude set in MCP.  Aircraft on autopilot; in LNAV and VNAV Path; 280KTS. In VMC and at approximately FL260; we experienced what we determined to be a wake turbulence event.  The aircraft rolled left and then hard to the right.  Amber caution on PFD and verbal caution 'Roll Authority'.  I disengaged the autopilot; verbalized 'my aircraft' and hand flew roll recovery to stabilize the aircraft.  Whole event lasted less than 5 sec (my estimate).  With aircraft stabilized and continuing on lateral/vertical path; I re-engaged autopilot B.  Other than the hard rolls; turbulence was nothing more than light; if even that.  I asked the CA student to make PA announcement for F/A to take jump seats; which he did.  Less than 5 sec after engaging Autopilot B; we had a 2nd wake turbulence event.  Again; with hard rolls left and right; with 'Roll Authority' cautions.  I disengaged autopilot; verbalized 'my aircraft'; and hand flew the aircraft until stabilized.  Event lasted no more than 5 sec (my estimate).  CA student notified ATC of wake event.  ATC said we were following an A320.  ATC then cleared us to slow to 250kts.  With aircraft stable again; I re-engaged autopilot and then set 250kts in FMC descent page.  A normal descent and landing were then accomplished with no further issues.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on descent into DEN in trail of an A320.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Fatigue
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were holding in position on Runway 18L; the Tower cleared us 'RNAV RIBZZ; cleared for takeoff Runway 18L'. I replied that we had WESTN in our FMS; and the Controller replied that WESTN was for BBKNG1 departure; and we were supposed to be on the BBKNG2. Takeoff clearance was canceled; and we were given instructions to clear the runway and contact Clearance Delivery for a new departure. After clearing the runway we discovered the FMS Nav database to be out of date. With the parking brake set the Captain swapped databases and reloaded the flight plan with the new departure. We verified the waypoints; re-ran the checklists; and departed uneventfully.I was complacent in my departure brief (this was the 4th day in a row of [same airport] out and backs); and didn't verify the BBKNG2 vs. BBKNG1. Very surprised I didn't catch the wrong initial waypoint in the FMS vs. the Commercial Chart EFB. [We] should have been more deliberate in the departure briefing.


Second narrative: Although I did look at the database during the setup; I missed that FEB - MAR was selected vs. MAR - APR.


Synopsis: An MD-10 flight crew had to refuse their takeoff clearance when they discovered they had an out of date FMS active database. After exiting the runway the retrieved and activated the current database and subsequently completed the trip without further incident.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PIA.Airport, IL
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower PIA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I have been a controller at PIA for several years and have worked during many snow storms. Over the years we have received many MU readings from the PIA airport operation vehicles. I have learned to be able to look at surface conditions and know what range of MU reading to expect from the vehicle. It seems that no matter how bad the surface conditions of the airport/runways are the MU reading always come back 'All MU's above 40'. I have questioned the numbers with the operation vehicle before and have been answered with 'the equipment is working correctly'. I have also told our management that the MU numbers we are receiving do not fit the conditions at the time. Last night it happened again during a snow storm; an air carrier landed Runway 13 and reported braking action 'fair'. This report was before any snow removal had begun. The airport vehicle did a runway check and gave us MU readings all above 40. I asked for the numbers; they were 42 40 41; with wet snow. A Commercial Aircraft landed Runway 31 and reported braking action 'POOR' after we had received the MU's and brooms had begun working to remove the snow from the runway. Another air carrier also reported braking action on Runway 31 as 'POOR'. The Ops vehicle did a runway and MU check on Runway 4; which had not been touched by any aircraft or vehicle before the check. The MU readings also came back 'All above 40'. I again asked for the numbers and they were 63 70 55 with 'wet snow' on the runways. I believe something (equipment) or someone (training) is not providing PIA air traffic with accurate MU numbers.




Synopsis: PIA Controller voiced concern regarding the accuracy of the MU readings provided by the airport given the observed weather conditions.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My company call sign code ABC confuses ATC with another commuter Air code ABD. To whom it may concern; please allow me to share a serious safety concern in regard to our ATC call sign ABC; as it turns out many co-workers including myself experience that Air traffic controllers all throughout the US and Canada have trouble confusing our code ABC with another commuter code ABD (The last digits being different but similarly shaped.) This poses a serious threat to the safety of our airline especially in the heavily congested airspace that we routinely operate. ATC continues to call us Company Y instead of Company X and vice versa. Recently we were taking off from La Guardia; NY where the Tower again cleared us for takeoff using the Company Y call sign. We replied to correct the problem with ATC. However this continues to happen on a daily basis. Recently cruising through an enroute sector a different controller called us by our original call sign. Every Company X pilot replied with the current call sign to be correct and legal. Also Company Y operates out of many of the same airports that we do and they sometimes use the same 4 digit flight number preceded by their code ABD. As a professional that looks out and seriously cares about the safety of all our coworkers; company as well as all those who operate in the same airspace I have the obligation to express this concern. Having previously flown for nearly 12 years at XYZ Airlines before joining ABC; I can testify that when the ABC air call sign was introduced on the frequency at the busiest airports of our nation; not only air traffic controllers were confused but also fellow pilots from other airlines. More than a suggestion I can assure that our old unmistakable call sign never gave anyone confusion on the radio nor visually when we are instructed to follow Company X on a taxi instruction. Pilots of other airlines without a doubt associate ABC with Company X.




Synopsis: Regional jet Captain reported that controllers throughout the US and Canada have trouble communicating; confusing his code ABC with another airline code.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Tower, GA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At 200 ft. AGL on climbout we entered wake turbulence from the 757 in front of us. The aircraft rolled to the right and we continued to climb just right of course. 0.18 was shown on the MFD. Winds were 150 at 07 and we were LNAV to RONII. Before we could get back on the track; ATC assigned us to heading 070 and stated we were south of our track. In our next radio call we stated what happened and the Controller cleared us to continue the departure. I feel increased separation from 757's would mitigate these occurrences from happening.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported a track deviation occurred on departure from ATL when the flight crew was distracted by a wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cirrus Vision SJ50
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed ZZZ for ZZZ1 for repositioning. After takeoff on initial climb; the terrain alert sounds 'loudly'. 'TERRAIN' 'PULL UP' 'PULL UP'. This was a surprise and a distraction; I was told to climb to 2500/Heading 140. I had the autopilot on and engage and all instruments were reading accurately. However it was disturbing to be in IMC/Dark and getting this type of alert. Flying the Plane first; I was unable to switch to Departure in a timely manner; and dealing with this alert; I passed my altitude and continued climbing; as she keep saying pull up. I was finally able to contact Departure who was aware I was having trouble; as I told Departure Tower-to let them know I was having trouble and unable to call at this moment. Settled level 4000 and still on assigned heading; and all was fine again. No more alerts; until descent into my destination airport. It started again descending through 3000. As I was confident in the instruments I ignored the alerts; but it was still a distraction. After landing; and calling Field Service; we discovered it was not the plane at all! It was my device that had an EFB Garmin Pilot; that was bluetooth to my headset that was giving me the alerts. My lesson: Pilots need to verify that portable EFBs that are bluetooth connected to headsets are properly workings or not turned on. Although I regret passing my assigned altitude; and delaying my contact to Departure. My #1 priority was to fly the plane; and talk later. I was able to do this. I will however; always check my portable EFB and turn it off when not using it. I hope this lesson will help other pilots.




Synopsis: SF50 Pilot reported erroneous terrain alert on departure due to improperly configured portable EFB resulting in altitude clearance deviation.
Date: 201908
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: Other Post flight unload
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Notification received 2 days after event. [Load Control] received a [Cargo Order] for Flight XXXX. [Cargo Order] stated '2 [priority] shipments showed held off but the 2 were actually loaded on flight by the Ramp.' DSTG (Departure Staging Guide) remarks for pit 4 reflected [priority package] however only 5 bags were contained in the weight field. DG (Dangerous Goods) was held off although it was scanned off by ORD from pit 4. This created a weight error as well as undocumented and unsecured DG issue. On the upside; the DG was RDS and H7E.




Synopsis: Commercial Airline ground personnel reported notification of mishandling of Dangerous Goods shipment which was erroneously loaded on aircraft and incorrectly configured for air shipment.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RAP.Airport, SD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D RAP
ATC / advisory: TRACON RCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: During descent to RAP from southwest we were cleared direct HELTA (IAF ILS 32). Due to heavy precipitation in vicinity on HELTA we were vectored west from it to avoid the weather. After clearing the weather; we were given descend to 7;000 feet with heading of 080 to enter base leg. Once we got closer to final approach we were given heading 350 to intercept localizer; descend and maintain 5;300 feet until established and cleared for the approach.On approximately 11 mile final when capturing LOC at 5;300 feet we received TERRAIN caution and then TERRAIN PULL UP alert. At that point I disconnected autopilot; applied GA thrust and started climb. After clearing the warning CA (Captain) notified ATC about the problem and leveling off at 6;500 feet we were given vector to the west. After engaging autopilot; CA evaluated our fuel situation (over 4;000 lbs fuel remaining) and asked for vectors for another approach. We were given heading approximate 150 and descend to 5;300 feet. During descent we had another EGPWS alert. I disengaged autopilot; applied GA thrust and started immediate climb. CA notified ATC and autopilot was engaged leveling off at safe altitude.We asked for vectors to intercept localizer at higher altitude and closer to HELTA. After intercepting LOC at more than 6;000 feet we were able to intercept GS and continue approach to landing without further incidents.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported receiving a ground proximity warning twice while being vectored for an ILS Approach.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GTF.Airport, MT
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While enroute to GTF; the CA (Captain) who was PM (Pilot Monitoring) requested direct DATSA with Center in order to set up for RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 21. As we neared DATSA; Approach Control gave us a vector towards the northeast for sequence. After a few minutes we were given a vector towards the southeast and the controller asked if we still wanted the RNAV Z Approach. We said yes.  He gave us a clearance direct to 'DRIFT'. I pushed DTO (Direct To) and used the FMS to fly direct to the fix DRFTR (I thought the controller was simply using a different pronunciation of the same fix). Shortly after; the CA realized that there was another fix on the approach: DRYFT; which was not in our flight plan in the FMS since we had used DATSA as our IAF. He queried the controller who confirmed that he had cleared us to DRYFT. At this point I had the airport in sight and  we requested a visual approach. We were cleared for the Visual to RWY 21 and performed a stable visual approach.The lesson I learned is to listen more carefully to the spelling of the fix the controller is giving us and not just assume it's the fix that sounds close to what he said. I recommend that one of these two fixes DRFTR and DRYFT be changed to something different. These two fixes are close to each other on the approach and the spelling and pronunciations are similar enough to cause confusion.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Crew reported two fixes with similar names close together.