elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was approaching Runway XX; entering in a standard left pattern. On final after touchdown; I got a strong crosswind from the right side; blowing me to the left portion of the runway. When I tried to correct the heading of the airplane to line up with the centerline I heard and realized that I hit a runway edge light and it bent. In my personal view I have to practice more crosswind landings; in specific with gusty winds in open airports.




Synopsis: C152 pilot reported a loss of control during landing in gusty conditions that resulted in contacting a runway edge light.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: F70.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 7
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Weather was 1;000 feet OVC. So we shot the RNAV Runway 18 approach. We crossed the FAF at 3;500 feet MSL and initiated descent to MDA; at approximately 1;000 feet AGL we received a 'terrain- pull up' GPWS warning. We initiated terrain avoidance procedure but as we were about to change configuration. We broke out to VMC conditions and continued the landing with terrain insight.In retrospect; French Valley is surrounded by high terrain and ATC does not have radar below 3;000 feet MSL. You are it. We did not go below MDA and vertical guidance was not available until we became visual.. Without the GPWS you would have little warning that terrain was near. GPWS should be mandatory for this approach..


Second narrative: If our GPWS warning was not spurious; due the lack of ATC radar coverage; for enhanced safety; I would suggest not conducting this approach in IMC past DISEY and below 2;600 feet without an operable GPWS.


Synopsis: While flying the RNAV GPS 18 Approach to F70 a medium sized turbo jet crew reported an EGPWS 'TERRAIN; PULL-UP' on profile at about 2;400 feet; past DISEY; with an 800 feet overcast. Terrain reference was obtained as the terrain avoidance maneuver was initiated so the flight continued to land.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Enroute] everything was normal; we had portable oxygen system which was engaged. I climbed to 17;000 feet and then climbed to 25;000 feet. I observed the passenger leaning forward as the oxygen line was not long enough to reach the rear seat. I moved the oxygen bottle from between the pilot and co-pilot seat. I assume my oxygen line kinked and the passenger's was working well. I subsequently lost consciousness and the passenger moved to the co-pilot seat.With help from Air Traffic Controllers the plane was brought back down to a lower altitude; I recovered and I landed at the nearest airport where emergency personnel checked both our vitals and oxygen and all was normal.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported losing consciousness at FL250 after his oxygen hose became kinked.
Date: 201908
Aircraft: B787-1000
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Unqualified technicians assigned to ETOPs (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance) aircraft Ref ETOPs. GMM 03-01-05 Section E Item 2.




Synopsis: Unqualified maintenance technicians were assigned to work on 787-10 (Extended-range Twin-engine Operations) aircraft.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Had stable approach all the way down from 3;000 FT when cleared for the visual [Runway] 18R at CLT. Crew complied with all checklists and company SOP. We were on a stable approach to landing and while power was at idle in the flare with full flaps and less that 20 FT from ground (audible call from aircraft Radio Alt.) when wake turbulence was encountered causing the plane to balloon up and bank right a little more than 10 degrees. Made immediate call for go around and performed balked landing procedure. Captain made radio call once we were climbing and safe distance from ground. Tower instructed to climb to 4;000 FT and runway heading. Shortly after we received vectors for another approach; but asked for the center runway.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported wake vortex encounter on approach to CLT that caused ballooning and some roll. Go around was executed and the flight landed safely on a different runway.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Manuals; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were flying to Watertown; with a filed route of ZZZ. DWN RWF AT ATY. Over Darwin; we started out on the 211 degree course as indicated on the flight plan to our next waypoint of Redwood Falls VOR. Over the DWN VOR; ATC queried us as to why we're going in that direction; to which we responded that was our filed route.We informed him that the ATY VOR was listed as out of service on the NOTAMs. We then explained to him that was the reason for the different route than we normally take. He told us that the ATY VOR was not out of service and cleared us to proceed direct to ATY from our current position. We tuned and identified the VOR; and were able to proceed to ATY without any further issues.




Synopsis: A Light Turboprop flight crew was flying a route that varied from the usual routing for that city pair. When queried by ATC; the crew stated that the reason for the change was that a VOR on their usual routing had been NOTAMed out of service. ATC replied that the VOR was in service and re-cleared them to the VOR and to their destination.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Captain was pilot flying. Once cleared onto runway for takeoff; we were taxiing into position; and while making the turn to centerline; the engines were spooled up to about 40% N1. The Captain then adjusted his body position in his seat; inadvertently pushing the thrust levers past the position where the auto-throttles engaged; powering the engines up to full takeoff power; before we were completely lined up on centerline. This forced us through centerline and aimed towards the grass between taxiways 'X' and 'X1'. Immediately pulling the power back to idle; the Captain regained control and steered back to centerline. We then exited the runway at 'X1' which was about 1;000 feet from where we entered onto the runway; taxied back to runway; ran the before takeoff checklist and departed.Waiting until completely lined up on runway centerline before spooling the engines up past idle thrust. An additional measure that would have prevented this from happening is waiting until lined up on runway before arming the auto-throttle.




Synopsis: The First Officer of an Embraer EMB175 reported that they aborted takeoff because the throttles were inadvertently pushed past auto-throttle position for takeoff.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Please note that this report is about two different issues on this flight. They are related however. Shortly after takeoff from ZZZ; we received a ACARS NOCOM message and it remained for the remainder of the flight. On approach into ZZZ1; I was the pilot flying and the autopilot was on. We were in IMC and continuous moderate turbulence. We received vectors for the ILS. After we intercepted the glideslope; we experienced a decreasing performance wind shear warning and executed a go-around. During the subsequent vectors; the FO and I discussed our fuel situation and options. Since ACARS was inop; I could not immediately notify Dispatch. We attempted the approach one more time; with identical results. We once again discussed our fuel situation and options and decided to divert to our filed alternate of ZZZ2. We computed that we had enough fuel to fly to ZZZ2; shoot an approach; and land with IFR reserves. We advised ATC of our intentions and I told my FO to contact dispatch via ZZZ1 ops. He was only able to have a message relayed through ops; not talk to dispatch directly. It was then that I transferred the controls to my FO and made a call to dispatch via Company Radio. It was successful; and I was able to notify dispatch of our intentions. They advised us that ZZZ2 would be notified of our arrival. When we entered ZZZ2 approach control airspace; it was obvious that they were very busy; with a long line of aircraft visible on TCAS. We didn't immediately notify ATC of our fuel situation; since it appeared that we were going to join the line of aircraft with normal vectors. Then; ATC notified us that they were going to vector us over the airport and join a right downwind. We then notified ATC that we were min fuel; and couldn't take any undue delay. He then asked us if we could accept a 25-30 mile final. We said that we could not accept those vectors. At that point; we receive priority and landed with @ 35 mins of fuel. We believed that those vectors would have added at least 10 mins to the flight. The landing and taxi-in were uneventful.Nothing could have been done differently. It was an unavoidable chain of events; with weather being the primary factor.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported diverting to an alternate because of weather considerations and a low fuel state.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HPN.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Currently there is a NOTAM for the ILS 16 at HPN for an alternate missed approach. The NOTAM does not specify how to hold at HAARP. The approach chart has an easy to overlook depiction of the hold at HAARP. The low chart in Jepp FD Pro shows a hold on the low airway at CRALY that can be confused for a hold at HAARP. When constructing the miss as an alternate flight plan in the FMS; the default hold in the FMS at HAARP is almost identical to the hold at CRALY except using HAARP and right [sic] turns instead of the left turns at CRALY. This situation is a set up for an improper/unexpected hold.My recommendation would be to add verbiage to the NOTAM to specify the hold details or refer to the hold depiction on the approach chart. Also; like the NOTAM going into SFO on the DYAMD arrival about the chart altitude being wrong at ARCHI; why isn't the chart changed for these long term situations? Both of these NOTAMS are for months long periods and the applicable charts should be changed to reflect the current procedure rather than rely on NOTAMS for months at a time?




Synopsis: GV Captain laments the use of a NOTAM at HPN over a period of months to advise that the alternate missed approach procedure should be flown with a climb to 3;000 feet instead of 2;300 feet. He also noted that a holding pattern on the low altitude airways chart at CRALY can be confused with the HAARP hold.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A CRJ was a go around off of Runway 25 and an Airbus was a departure off of Runway 19. The Tower requested the CRJ to fly runway heading; climbing to 070 which put the aircraft in close proximity of terrain. When the Tower called to coordinate a male spoke first and then a female started talking. At that point I just needed to talk to both aircraft. That forced me to turn the CRJ to avoid the terrain. My plan was to take the Airbus off the departure and use altitude with the CRJ. I had already accomplished all of my point outs to follow through with my plan. A CPC came over to try and help and told me to climb the CRJ to 080. At that point I climbed the Airbus to 070 and kept him on the departure. The Airbus had the CRJ in sight and was instructed to maintain visual separation; once the two were out of conflict I climbed the Airbus because he was approaching higher terrain. The CRJ stayed above the Airbus's wake until appropriate separation could be maintained. The Tower's idea of a fix for a Runway 25 go around and a 19 departure is not helpful to the TRACON because of terrain. Because go arounds are time critical communication needs to happen quickly. We don't have time to explain to the Tower why something won't work. In this case; I just needed to talk to both aircraft.




Synopsis: L30 Controller described a developing MVA/conflict event between a go around on Runway 25 and a departure off Runway 19; the reporter listing the Tower's instructions to the go around aircraft and the late frequency transfer as causal factors.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CVG.Airport, KY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower CVG
Aircraft component: Electronic Library (other than Nav database)
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Troubleshooting; Other / Unknown; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Manuals; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: During taxi to Runway 27. Noted taxi chart in Jeppesen and Airport Moving Map (AMM) taxi chart do not match. Taxiways J3; K3; M4; and M1 are not labeled correctly on the taxi chart but are correct on the AMM chart.  AMM chart matches the taxiways. This caused confusion and clarification with ground.  No clearances were violated. Jeppesen charts are conflicting with each other.Suggestion - Send a Jeppesen chart alert and fix the Jeppesen charts.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported the aircraft's electronic Airport Moving Map (AMM) does not agree with the Jeppesen taxi chart in CVG.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: Tower PHX
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At approximately 1500 feet AGL on final approach to Runway 26 I noticed an aircraft on TCAS that appeared too close to our aircraft. I looked over my left shoulder and acquired the aircraft visually. The aircraft appeared to be turning onto final for our runway and appeared to be over taking us. I lost sight of it as it disappeared behind the tail of our aircraft so I shifted back to the TCAS display. The TCAS display showed the target continuing to gain on us; and in fact the target appeared to merge with our aircraft and the altitude differential displayed '00'. I initiated a go-around but aborted it as I thought he might be above us. I then disconnected the autopilot and auto-thrust and executed a descending breakout to the right. After getting off the localizer I rolled the wings level and saw the target on the TCAS diverging from our path. A jump seat rider sitting directly behind me reacquired the aircraft visually and informed me he was turning back to the south. I rejoined the localizer and continued the approach and landing as we were still stable.I believe the aircraft either overshot his final approach course for Runway 25L or was cleared to land on Runway 26 and did not slow to approach speed.




Synopsis: An Airbus Captain on final to PHX Runway 26 reported another aircraft apparently overshot the Runway 25L centerline; which resulted in an extremely close airborne encounter.