elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: This is a report of a wake turbulence encounter at 10;000 FT during arrival into LAX near the SMO VOR. Shortly after leveling at 10;000 FT and slowing per ATC request; I encountered wake turbulence from a preceding aircraft. TCAS placed the aircraft at our 12:00 and about 10 miles. Initially; the wake encounter was very mild with only slow rolling left and right. When it persisted; I slowed my airspeed 10-15 KTS and requested a climb. Very soon the encounter worsened and I disconnected the autopilot when faced with 30 degrees of bank left and right with large control inputs required to maintain level flight. A second request for a climb was made when positive aircraft control began to deteriorate. Altitude control required a power increase to maintain altitude. I advised ATC that I was climbing to get out of a wake turbulence encounter. At about 10;300 FT; positive control resumed and I leveled off at 10;500 FT. I advised ATC that I was resuming a descent back to 10;000 FT when they provided a right vector away from my previous track. I was then advised by ATC that I was following a B777. Winds at altitude were calm. This may have had an impact on wake dissipation.


Second narrative: At level flight; experienced moderate to severe aircraft roll from a preceding heavy B777; resulting in a rapid roll to 30 degrees. The Captain required almost full control deflection to stop the aircraft from rolling. The B777 was about 7-8 miles in front of us and descending.


Synopsis: Q400 flight crew reported encountering wake vortex following a B777 into LAX that resulted in significant roll. Captain deviated from assigned altitude to assure control.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FPR.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Aircraft component: Attitude Indicator(Gyro/Horizon/ADI)
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was flying straight and level at 6;000 feet. layer of clouds 1 mile ahead asked ATC for deviation off course. ATC approved 15 degree left or right of course before I could deviate was in clouds was straight and level for a few minutes then due to turbulence aircraft was banking to left was trying to get back to straight and level but then started losing altitude when that happened I notified ATC 'unable to maintain altitude and was calling out my flight level.'Once I got positive control of the airplane again informed ATC and then ATC asked me if I want to return to VRB or FPR so I asked for a return to my home base FPR. Miami Center then decided to [advise] for me at FPR and gave me non Gyro vectors. Once my Heading indicator seemed to be working fine I resumed my own navigation and asked for a low approach over 10R so that the Tower could check my landing gear for any damage. Once I was given an all clear from ATC I made right traffic for 10R and landed safely.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported loss of inflight control due to entering IMC; turbulence and a heading indicator malfunction.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MKE.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C MKE
ATC / advisory: Tower MKE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While operating a flight we were approximately one and a half mile final to the runway when the Tower Controller cleared a business jet for takeoff. The First Officer commented on the Tower clearance and I verified I heard the same clearance. Then we saw the jet cross the hold short line; entering the runway. At that time; I called for the go-around. The First Officer notified the Tower. The Tower gave us instructions for a right visual pattern for the second attempt at an approach and apologized for the error. We completed the second visual approach without incident. Post flight; I sent an ACARS message to the Dispatcher; advising them of the go-around and the fact that we only used TOGO thrust. The Tower Controller cleared a business jet for takeoff on the runway as we were on one and one half mile final.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported executing a go around when the Controller cleared an aircraft for takeoff as they were on short final.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While turning onto the lead in line to the gate; a maintenance pickup failed to yield to our aircraft; forcing our abrupt stop to avoid a collision. LGA Ramp was notified. Airport authority personnel met the aircraft at our request. The driver of the vehicle was cited by the airport authority. Company Operations was also contacted.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported making an abrupt stop during taxi into the gate at LGA due to a conflict with a vehicle.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D LGB
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was in the cab and had only been monitoring LC-2 (Local Control) for a few minutes when I observed two separate losses of separation with Aircraft X. First Aircraft Y was cleared to land on RY 25R and was still airborne approximately 50 feet AGL abeam the closed runway 34R when Aircraft X was cleared for take-off RY 30 from LUAW (Line Up And Wait). He was instructed to turn left just after he touched down (when you hear the audio in FALCON remember that when LC-2 instructed Aircraft Y to turn left onto K2; he had just touched down) while Aircraft X was on the role RY30. The second loss of separation was with Aircraft Z the number 2 aircraft on final RY 25R he was over the number of RY 25R as Aircraft X crossed the intersection of RY 25R on RY 30.I believe he was trying to get Aircraft X out for some reason; because I kept hearing him say that he got the release at the worst possible time. I believe the ATC's was aware of the location of all of the aircraft; but spoke as though nothing had happened. The FLM (Front Line Manager) was working CD (Clearance Delivery) combined with CIC (Controller in Charge) and I do not believe he was in any way aware of the events that just took place right next to him. I waited a few minutes after LC-2 was relieved and left the tower to file this report. Although FALCON REPLAY is not as good as eyes on; I thought it might help. I don't know what to do about this; I was watching the whole thing; and I believe the ATCs was completely aware of the rules he was breaking but did it anyway.




Synopsis: LGB Tower Controller reported two losses of separation by the same Local Controller; who in the reporters mind knew the correct procedure; but did not apply it.
Date: 201403
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Other Unwanted situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Our company preaches 'safety first' heavily yet [directs employees to conduct] practices--clearly in an effort to save money--that do not put safety first; such as the procedure at ORD which states: 'AIRCRAFT CAN AND WILL BE DE-ICED AT THE GATE WITH THE JETBRIDGE ATTACHED AND THE MAIN CABIN DOOR OPEN.' Am I really the only person who thinks this is unsafe? How many passengers and/or employees need to get de-icing fluid sprayed in their face before the company changes this procedure? De-icing fluid is toxic. I have already flown with a crewmember who personally knows of someone sprayed with de-icing fluid because of this practice.




Synopsis: A B737 First Officer expressed incredulity at a company directive advising that aircraft 'can and will' be de-iced at the gate with the jetway in place and the passenger door open. He stressed the risk of personal injury; the toxicity of the fluids involved and his belief that the procedure was implemented solely as a cost saving measure with safety relagated to a subordinate concern.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PSP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PSP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Crew received a 'Terrain; Terrain' warning on a visual approach to 31L at PSP in VMC conditions at night. Pilot Flying disconnected AutoPilot; went to Takeoff Go-around thrust; stowed speed brakes; and performed the escape maneuver approximately 18-20 miles east of the airport. Crew had the airport in sight at 21 miles and was offered and accepted a visual approach to 31L. Occurrence was at 6;600 feet MSL and maneuver was terminated at approximately 7;500 feet. Crew then proceeded direct to CEMEK and descended via the charted RNAV Visual 31L to a normal landing. Descent rate at time of the occurrence was 1;000 FPM. Descent on the visual was on a normal 3 to 1 descent profile for landing.


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


Synopsis: An A319 flight crew reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on a night visual approach to PSP Runway 31L.
Date: 202011
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: A party of 3 came on just as we were to close the flight; the agents stated he was exempt from wearing a mask; to which we questioned what he was told he was going to be able to do for the flight; which was not to wear his mask.  The crew on the whole questioned what the Agent was saying; the Purser approached the Captain who said he would ask ZZZ operations; in the meantime the Lead came down and agreed with the crew that there were no exceptions to our mask policy; with debate and talking to the passenger we all looked to find it in black and white; while waiting for ZZZ to call back; the gate agents closed the door and pulled the jet bridge.  The Purser explained to the passenger from [seat number] that he and one of his guests could move to seat area X to keep them separated from the majority of our guests; during the flight I have to say I had to tell his friend to keep his mask on more; I chatted to them prior to landing and informed them they would have to wear their mask for their trip itinerary as there were no exceptions...that they had been miss informed prior to our flight.  They actually seemed nice.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported having to explain to a passenger that there were no exemptions to having to wear a face mask.  Passenger and two others traveling with him were not compliant during the flight.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Lancair IV/IVP
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cabin Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Loud bang with an instant loss of cabin pressure. Oxygen masks which were placed on the back seat were not there. Deployed speed brakes; reduced power to idle; pointed nose down until speed reached red line. Contacted ATC while descending in VFR conditions and got clearance for 11;000 FT. Entered IMC and leveled and stabilized the aircraft with lower speed at 11;000 FT. Started looking for the reason for cabin pressure drop; Found that the rear window on driver side was missing. Verified that all controls were working properly. Advised Controller about missing window and that everything was OK and under control. Received clearance for 9;000 FT. Continued flight to destination at 9;000 FT without window with 170 KTS IAS. Landed without any problems.




Synopsis: A Lancair 4P lost cabin pressure at FL200 when a passenger window failed.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO; Class C SJC
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were departing SJC via the RNAV Departure. We accelerated to 250 knots not realizing we were still below SFO Class B airspace. The Controller pointed out the speed below Class B. We reduced speed back to 200 knots until entering Class B. We attribute this oversight to a confusing clearance and quick turn of the aircraft before departure. We didn't take time to review overlying Class B airspace.




Synopsis: A corporate pilot reported exceeding 200 knots below Class B airspace.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: FO was PF. During takeoff; at 80 kt call; no airspeed was noted on the FO's airspeed indicator. We preformed the rejected TO procedure and taxied back to the gate. The issue was written up in the logbook; and maintenance found debris in the FO's pitot tube. MX cleared the debris and apparently blew into the pitot tube to verify the blockage was removed. While I'm not an A&P; it does not seem like that would be an approved method to verify the pitot tube was cleared. However the mechanic was in contact with Maintenance Control. The aircraft was subsequently signed off.We taxied back out for the next takeoff. The FO was PF again; and during the takeoff roll; all indications seemed normal. During the brief; we assigned the Pilot in the First Observer's seat the task of comparing the standby Airspeed to the FO's airspeed. All indications were normal during the takeoff roll. As soon as we were airborne; the FO's airspeed dropped by approximately 15 knots and created an 'IAS DISAGREE' 'AILERON LOCKOUT' and 'RUDDER RATIO' message. After completing the Unreliable Airspeed QRH; and subsequent QRH checklists; then returned to the field uneventfully.When an aircraft returns to the gate with a substantial fault in the air data system; the company should probably take that return more seriously from a Maintenance standpoint than a 'Could not duplicate' signoff. The lackadaisical approach to such a serious malfunction should seriously erode the confidence in our maintenance organization following approved policies; procedures and best practices to maintain a high level of safety. There should be a strict protocol developed and followed for flight critical and ETOPS critical systems.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported an aborted takeoff due to an airspeed anomaly. After Maintenance addressed the issue; a subsequent takeoff was successful; however the problem returned once airborne and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb; the Captain noted a smell similar to a 'rub strip' odor; normal during a 737 first flight. Because this was a first flight and no secondary indications were noted; we continued climb. Neither I nor other flight personnel initially smelled the odor. Later in the climb; other crewmembers also began to faintly smell the same odor. After cruise; the faint odor was again noted and seemed to intermittently dissipate. After completing high altitude checks and entering the lower altitude block of 14;000-16;000 FT; the Flight Analyst came forward to announce that he could smell fumes in the flight deck but not in the aft passenger cabin. The Captain and I elected to don oxygen masks for the remainder of the flight. At that point; the crew elected to terminate further flight checks and return to the airport. We also ran appropriate checklists. While being vectored for final approach; we declared an emergency with Approach Control for priority handling and an uneventful approach and landing ensued. The fumes and actions taken were fully described during debrief with Quality Assurance and Maintenance.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B-737 flight test crew declared an emergency; donned oxygen masks; and returned to their departure airport due to recurring fumes in the cockpit.