elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Tower, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On very short final approach to Runway 1L at LAS; Crew noticed several strobe lights off the left side of the aircraft coming from the street adjacent to the airport. Strobes were distracting to the Crew. Crew landed normally. Crew notified Dispatch. Crew notified LAS Tower. There was no further incident. Local events need to be aware of factors that affect aircraft safety in the close proximity of air traffic. Distracting factors for off airport events should be mitigated.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain on short final to Runway 1 at Las Vegas reported strobe lights from a street event were a distraction.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
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: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
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; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X on V25 descended below the MEA and Minimum IFR Altitude due to the downdrafts. At the lowest the aircraft descended to 7200 MSL. The aircraft turned around and headed towards lower terrain. Eventually the pilot cancelled IFR and continued on to his destination.




Synopsis: ZSE ARTCC Controller reported an aircraft encountered downdrafts which pushed the aircraft below the Minimum IFR Altitudes on the airway.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon being cleared to line up and wait on Runway 24L at LAX; the Captain and I started a clock to note the time of takeoff roll for a B777 departing just prior to us. When we were cleared for takeoff; we verified a full two minutes had elapsed. The Captain said he would plan to lift off prior to and climb above any remaining wake left by the B777. Winds were light from the southeast and noted. The Captain verified that I agreed we were safe to depart (given the B777 ahead). We took off without incident. Climbing out of approximately 1;800 FT MSL; we suddenly entered remaining wake (assumed from the B777). Nearly full control inputs were required from the Captain to maintain relatively level flight and to reduce our climb rate in order to fly out of the wake. The turbulence lasted approximately ten to fifteen seconds. ATC was notified. The plane and passengers only felt a moderate type of turbulence. While all common sense and procedural items were complied with; perhaps an ATC or pilot requested early turnout after liftoff (to avoid trailing the heavy B777) would be appropriate. I certainly don't intend to allow my aircraft to be in any potential wake path again.




Synopsis: B737-300 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence from preceding B777 on departure from LAX.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBGR.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower SBGR
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While shooting the 09R RNAV approach; ATC directed us to abort the approach and go around for drone activity near the landing runway. We executed the missed approach; entered holding until the airport was clear of the drone activity. Also; during our base turn to final; prior to our go around; we came within 1/2 mile of a Para glider at our same altitude near the VUSAG waypoint.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported ATC assigned missed approach due to drone activity near the landing runway.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GVQ.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF GVQ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I approached the non-towered airport the active runway was 10. Winds were calm. Two other aircraft left the pattern and I remained in closed traffic for Runway 10. On my third landing; which was short field practice; I landed and was about to lift back off when I noticed an aircraft on short final for 28. I had been announcing my intentions for each turn in the pattern on Unicom for all three landings. I had received responses from other pilots in the pattern when I first arrived so I knew my radio was functional. I called to the aircraft on final and got no response; he/she had not made any radio calls. I taxied to the south side of the runway to allow room for them to land because I was not near an exit. The landing aircraft was a small piston single; I'm not sure which make. It had two small vertical stabilizers on the ends of the horizontal stabilizer. They landed and taxied off before we met one another. When the aircraft cleared the active I announced my intentions; took off and departed the pattern for my home airport. We were never closer than 1;000 FT; but had circumstances been slightly different we may have made the news.




Synopsis: Following his third closed circuit landing on Runway 10 at a non-towered airport the pilot of a C152 took precautionary evasive action for an aircraft landing opposite direction; the pilot of which had not followed recommended CTAF communication procedures.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Descent; Climb; Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Physiological - Other; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the climb out; no issues presented itself. It wasn't till we passed through FL240; that we noticed the aircraft had an excessive amount of nose up trim. The autopilot was engaged at the time. The aircraft; aside from the trim; acted normally. We chose to level off at FL410; in case we lost the Mach Trim computer. At cruise; the autopilot held the aircraft level; but trim was still full nose up.We tried a numerous amount of trouble shooting and nothing worked. On descent; the autopilot descended the aircraft; but the trim then went full nose down! I pulled back on the yoke so the aircraft wouldn't nose over. This is when the Flight Guidance Computers (FGC) failed due to pilot input overriding autopilot. We went to manual and I had difficulty flying the aircraft with full aft trim. Weather at our destination was around BKN030 and getting worse.Landing was a bit challenging. Fully configured the trim was full nose down. I had to put an excessive amount of back pressure to prevent the aircraft from nosing over. Landing was accomplished safely and the problem was reported to maintenance.




Synopsis: A G-IV crew reported an excessive nose up trim during climb and cruise. During descent; the aircraft trimmed full nose down causing flight computer failure with the pilot's excessive yoke pull. Flying manually in the landing configuration; preventing a nose over was challenging.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HDF.VOR, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON RIV
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Climbing VFR out of ZZZ enroute to ZZZ1 by way of FRETS Intersection; to VPLSR and the Special Flight Rules VFR corridor. Already on with VFR Flight Following on March Approach. Climbing; about to level off at 6;500 feet ; on a flight path towards FRETS which took me north of Lake Elsinore and the glider and parachute drop zones; I saw a skydiver immediately at my 12 o'clock; same altitude; under canopy (full canopy extension). As I saw him aggressively attempt to change direction with his canopy; I simultaneously banked my airplane aggressively to the right; which seemed the only evasive option; while also concerned more parachute jumpers may be above me; drifting down. I successfully avoided the parachute jumper; and saw no others. It was the closest mid-air; aircraft or otherwise; I have encountered. ATC gave me a vector to turn right to a heading of 360 within 90 seconds of the encounter I had with the jumper. I had not relayed anything to ATC. I obliged with the turn; and eventually was given on course heading a couple minutes later. After reviewing my charts countless times and my flight track/path upon landing; I still see I was well clear (I was both north and northeast of both areas) of the published glider and parachute areas.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported a NMAC with a skydiver.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Holding short of XXL on taxiway. Given clearance for takeoff. Student began taxi. Started drifting left. Applied right rudder. Kept drifting left. Applied more right rudder and brake. Kept drifting. Pulled power and full right rudder and brake. Instructor took controls and applied full right brake and rudder. Brake pedal went to floor. Left tire hit gravel and pulled plane to left. Spun plane 180 degree in gravel. No damage to aircraft; propeller; or taxiway lights observed.




Synopsis: C172RG Flight Instructor reported steering issue during takeoff roll.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft had MEL concerning Flap Channel B Fail. We briefed contingencies concerning slow flap operation; reviewed MEL and QRH procedures. I was pilot not flying. At 3;000 FT MSL; we were cleared the visual to Runway 23 and handed off to Tower. We began descent down to 2;500 FT and checked in with Tower; we were cleared to land [Runway] 23. First Officer commanded flaps 9. After actuation the flap control; EICAS indicated 'FLAP FAIL' caution. The flap position indicator showed 0 and was still normal white color. I told Tower we had an issue to work through and requested handoff back to Departure for delay vectors. We were cleared back up to 3;000 FT and handed off to Departure frequency. I then began the QRH procedure for No Flap Landing. Required landing distance was determined to be available on Runway 23. We discussed other relative nearby options. We had 2;300 LBS fuel on board. A major airport was within range; but arriving with just under 1;800 LBS planned and cruising for 45 minutes. We decided best to land at [our destination airport]. We briefed irregularities and threats. I then declared emergency and informed approach of our flap failure condition. We provided souls on board and fuel remaining information. I briefed the Flight Attendant that we had an irregular situation and had called the trucks; but that we felt there were no severe threats. We arranged a signal in case we needed passengers to brace. We then flew the approach and landing as planned. We touched down and rolled out without any further irregularities.Threats were system failure; irregular operations. I feel there were no errors nor undesired aircraft states.The only area I feel I could have done differently would have been to divert to a maintenance base. But I'm still confident I chose the safest choice. Benefits: passengers got where they intended; aircraft in position for next flight. Drawbacks: no maintenance. May need to fly in or drive in maintenance personnel.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 EICAS alerted FLAPS FAIL during the initial flap extension with Flap Channel B MELed; so an emergency was declared and with fuel considerations; an uneventful landing followed at the filed destination.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
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: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We were on final approach for Runway 28R. We had selected the FMS Bridge Visual 28R and had been cleared for the approach. As usual we were slightly high on the profile due to numerous ATC speed assignments during the approach. At 1;100 FT we were on profile with the PAPI showing two white and two red lights. We were 3 miles from touchdown and descending at about 700 FT per minute. At this point the Tower Controller transmitted; 'low altitude alert; check your altitude immediately.' This caused us to delay our 1;000 FT call and was very distracting. We replied that we were on profile and that the PAPI confirmed that. A short time later the Tower Controller transmitted 'no comment'.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reports being issued a low altitude alert by SFO Tower while passing 1;000 FT on the PAPI for Runway 28R.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Trainee; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was training on the RADAR controller position. I accepted a hand off on a Dash 8 from Approach when the aircraft was leaving 8;000 or 9;000 FT if I remember correctly. Inside of Approach's airspace was a VFR aircraft indicating 11;500 MSL of unknown type northbound and in direct conflict with the departing Dash 8 flight. The aircraft remained on Approach's frequency for a short time before checking on; which I assumed was because Approach was issuing the traffic. When the aircraft initially checked on he was climbing out of 10;000 for 12;000. I acknowledged the aircraft and issued a climb clearance to FL190. After the read back from the Dash 8 flight I issued the traffic of the VFR northbound at 11;500. The flight responded that they were responding to an RA to which I acknowledged. As soon as the conflict was clear; I advised the aircraft that the traffic had passed behind and was no factor. When asked; the flight stated that Approach never issued them any traffic in regards to the VFR aircraft. I believe this could have been avoided had approach issued the traffic to the flight before switching him to Center frequency. In hindsight I should have issued the traffic first before any sort of control instruction.




Synopsis: En route Controller described a TCAS RA event between an IFR and VFR aircraft within TRACON's airspace. The IFR was handed off and transferred to the Center; the reporter notes the conflicting traffic should have been issued by the TRACON.
Date: 201601
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight; In-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The Company has issued flight attendants iPads to use on aircraft. They are now requiring that we carry it to perform our preflight and inflight safety. That is all well and good; but they require it to be near our jump seats (we have no place to store it) and on our persons during the flight (we have no place to keep it in our uniforms--presently no pockets are big enough to store it.) I think it is a step forward in the right direction; but unrealistic.




Synopsis: Flight attendants are now required by the Company to carry iPads to perform preflight and safety duties. The Flight Attendant reported that there is no place to store them near the jump seats or on their person.
Date: 201408
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Dispatch sent us an ACARS [message] during sterile cockpit regarding a [flight crewmember] scheduling issue. The message was received [during our approach and landing; a mere eight minutes prior to our block arrival.]Scheduling had already tried to contact me twice via cell phone/voicemail during a single round-trip and were too impatient to wait for me to call them when I returned to base; which is already [contractually] required. They even changed my schedule multiple times during the round-trip; so if I had picked up the first time and been notified; they still would have had to contact me again. They shouldn't be contacting me at all; since I'm required to contact them. Worse; they are now involving dispatchers with resources used for the operation of a safe flight during a high workload flight environment. This has been a repeated abuse and whatever punishment; if any; the company is receiving for misusing the ACARS is not enough to get them to stop.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain expressed his displeasure at his company flight crew schedulers utilizing ACARS communications during critical phases of flight for non flight related purposes; i.e. revising flight crew schedules.