elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On Downwind for runway 35C flying the BRDJE arrival passing approx 4;000 ft; ATC cleared us to 3;000ft and asked us to expedite the descent. Upon reaching approx 3;150 and on base leg; ATC advised us to maintain 3;500ft stating that this was the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA). We confirmed that we had been cleared to 3;000 ft and the controller acknowledged that clearance had been issued by mistake. We climbed to 3;500 and made the visual approach and landed without incident. All crew were at stations.


Second narrative: On downwind for ILS 35C/visual approach; we were complying with a 'expedite descent to 3000' clearance issued by [ATC]. At approximately 3150 feet; controller issued 'climb to 3500 feet for MVA' (this occurred as we were midway through base turn). This clearance put us back at the base of the clouds which thinned as we headed north 'cleared to intercept the localizer'. Shortly thereafter; we called 'visual' and landed without incident. Tower issued an altitude (3000 feet) clearance below his MVA in error. He corrected his clearance to 3500 feet. We maintained compliance with both. Will continue to comply with ATC approach clearances in safe conditions.


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported descending to altitude assigned by ATC; which was an error and below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude. ATC Caught the error and issued crew a higher altitude.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CHS.TRACON, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Airspace: Class E CHS
ATC / advisory: TRACON CHS
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I received a NOTAM through AOPA member services about a TFR. I read the NOTAM and understood the TFR would be in effect from XA:30 through XD:15 local time.I understood the TFR extended to a 30 NM radius from the CHS VORTAC. I read that flights at RBW would be affected. I used a NM plotter and sectional to measure the distance from the CHS VORTAC to RBW and found that RBW was just outside the 30 NM radius. Thus; I assumed only flights arriving and departing to the east of RBW and penetrating the 30 NM radius was required to use the ATC services.Previous TFRs at CHS; had not included the RBW airport. I departed RBW approximately XC:35 local to the west. After flying westward for approximately 15 minutes; I turned back toward RBW.With a Garmin GPS and distance measuring from the CHS VORTAC; I carefully flew the pattern at RBW to ensure I did not penetrate the 30 NM radius for the TFR; and I landed back at RBW approximately XD:00. When I arrived at the FBO; I received a call from ATC informing me of a possible violation.It is my belief that I did not violate the airspace and I used due caution to avoid it. If I misunderstood the intent of this TFR; I sincerely apologize. I would never want to create an unsafe condition.I respectfully offer this observation; this TFR was ambiguous in that the airport I used (RBW) was not included in the 30 NM radius; yet the NOTAM stated it would be affected without clarifying how it would be affected. I would offer this suggestion. If an airport is mentioned in the NOTAM; clearly include all the airspace around that airport in the restricted airspace area. Thank you.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported researching a planned TFR and believe was successful in avoiding it; but was advised by ATC of a possible pilot deviation.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Family seated in Row XX traveling with an infant in the car seat. Father was seated in XX3 with 2 small children in XX1 and XX2. Mother sat in XX4 and put car seat into XX5. After takeoff the Mother moved back one row leaving the baby in the car seat unattended. She was also sleeping without a face mask. D FA woke Mother to tell her that she needed to put on her mask and also talked to the Father and told him that the Mother needed to sit in the row with the baby. She explained that there was a safety concern that should there be a decompression there was no one within reach of the baby to apply the oxygen mask. The Father spoke to the Mother; but she refused to return to her seat with the baby.Baby in car seat was unattended for most of the flight.  Safety concern as baby in car seat was unattended while the Mother slept in the row behind the baby. Unable to get the Mother to return to the seat next to the baby. Family needs to agree to wearing masks and being responsible for their baby before they are allowed to fly again.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a mother leaving a baby in the car seat and sitting in the row behind the infant.  Mother refused to wear a face mask and return to row where infant was.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DAL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We initiated a go-around during an ILS to Runway 31R in Dallas [Love]; due to an errant glideslope signal which placed the aircraft below glidepath and triggered an obstacle alert from the GPWS. The approach was being flown uneventfully by the autopilot. At approximately 1900 FT MSL; the glideslope indicator made a rapid downward deflection of approximately 1.5 dots; pitching the aircraft nose down. This was followed by a GPWS 'Caution Obstacle' alert triggered by the building that lies on the approach course; and is charted at 1049 FT MSL. We were in and out of the clouds in MDT rain and visually acquired the building ahead; noting that we were still well above it. I commenced a go-around and was immediately handed off to Departure Control. I told the Controller that I suspected that an aircraft on the ground had penetrated the ILS critical area and triggered the glideslope fluctuation and to please advise the Tower as we were unable to do so during the missed approach. The Tower Controller told him that an aircraft had indeed been taxied into position on the runway as the weather was above 800 FT ceiling and two miles visibility; which are the requirements for protecting the ILS critical area. The ATIS was reporting a ceiling of 1300 FT broken; 2000 FT overcast and visibility of four miles in heavy rain and mist. The second approach was uneventful and we landed four minutes late. During taxi in; I gave the Ground Controller the reason for our previous missed approach.


Second narrative: I called out the obstacle (a high-rise tower) in sight; but because we were still in IMC (there were clouds below and beyond the obstacle); the Captain initiated a go-around. It appears that aircraft in the ILS critical area caused our incident.


Synopsis: ATC cleared on aircraft onto DAL Runway 31R. That aircraft interfered with the ILS glideslope and caused an aircraft on final to pitch down and receive an EGPWS alert. The crew executed a missed approach.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C FLL
ATC / advisory: Tower FLL
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Day VFR landing on runway 28L (new runway for FLL) visual approach. At approx. 2 miles from landing I noticed a very unusual approach end to runway 28L. It seemed like a very large and tall fence at the approach end of the runway. I was concerned and asked my copilot if what I thought I saw was correct; he wasn't sure. Neither one of us had landed on this new runway before. On closer examination it become clear that it was a very tall sea wall approx. 65ft tall surrounded by sand that made it look much taller. Crossing the threshold and just starting to pull the power to idle we received a GPWS warning that both of us thought was 'glideslope' initially. Now just prior to touchdown we realized it was warning was 'TERRAIN'. With the power now at idle; and DAY VFR I thought the safest course of action was to land. Of course there was no terrain ahead of the aircraft and we considered it a false warning. I think the large sea wall and the drastic vertical difference in terrain just prior to landing fooled the GPWS into the alarm. I remember several years ago on an approach plate into Charleston West Virginia that read 'you may receive a false GPWS warning do to terrain'. I think this is a similar condition.The runway is also sloped significantly downhill (even more so than runway 23 in CLT) that may be a contributing factor.Add to the approach plate that a GPWS warning may be triggered do to the 65 feet sea wall at the approach end of runway 28L.




Synopsis: An A321 flight crew landing in VMC on Runway 28L at FLL received a GPWS Terrain warning as they crossed the threshold; closing the throttles for landing.  The reporter suspects the 55 foot raised elevation at the approach end of the runway and the 'seawall' type structure supporting it contributed to a false warning.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G GXY
ATC / advisory: UNICOM GXY
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying visual by myself learning new autopilot and running it thru the ILS 35 approach sequence but visually. Lots of traffic in the area (at least 3-4 planes). I was making radio calls and position reports and other were also; but it was hard to keep track of everyone. Note BJC was not supporting practice [approaches] due to ATC limits and I think more were flying up north than normal.  Right traffic for [Runway] 28 crosses 35 runway.  I was watching a plane doing touch and go patterns on 28.  I went thru the missed procedure (visually) a little earlier than minimum. I was climbing out on 350 heading; but another plane also crossed from my left and I didn't see [it] until late and until I had climbed to its altitude.  I don't know if it was in pattern or traversing the area.   I was climbing and turned steep left. They also turned steep to their left.  My attention was split mostly outside and but some inside to sequence the AP.  I believe I had right of way; but if there is a collision; it won't matter. I had traffic on my iPad and panel.  But with so many close targets it wasn't useful. Had I not started climb early; I would not have reached pattern altitude so quickly. Also; even if not under the hood a safety pilot is a good idea in congested areas.




Synopsis: Pilot of a light twin flying practice approaches reported an NMAC with another aircraft in the vicinity of GXY airport.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on vectors with Approach Control over the vicinity of Frisco or The Colony; kind of on a long extended base leg; for an expected ILS to 17C. Frequency 127.05. We were given clearance to descend to 5000 ft. In the descent; at roughly 6500 ft; perhaps; we got a TA and the yellow traffic indicator at 12 o'clock. We could not spot the traffic initially. At about 6000 ft still in the descent; we got the RA and the red traffic indicator at 12 o'clock; plus new flight path guidance to climb. At that point; the Relief Pilot identified the traffic straight ahead and said it looked to be an experimental airplane. I disconnected the automation and hand flew the airplane in accordance with the RA instructions; which directed a climb. I smoothly climbed straight ahead to about 6500 ft or 7000 ft; roughly; the Captain (pilot monitoring) notified ATC of the RA; and I returned to the original altitude and airspeed once we were Clear of Conflict. On the ground; at the gate; the captain planned to notify Dispatch. I believe we came within 500 ft of the traffic; or possibly closer; which I think was at 5500 ft at the time.When we reported the RA to the ATC Controller; she said in response that she has that traffic on TCAS; or on her radar; or something to that effect. My thought was; 'Then why were we on vectors descending into it?'


Second narrative: There was a lot of traffic on the inbound complex; and the controller was very busy; but it seems there should have been some radar alert at atc; so the controller wouldn't vector and descend us through a transponder equipped VFR aircraft inside the Class B airspace on active runway finals. The TCAS saved us in the congested airspace; so I highly recommend aircrews pay attention to their TCASs; especially with the increased traffic flows of the new packed complexes.


Synopsis: An air carrier crew on vectors to DFW Runway 17C and descending to 5;000 ft followed a TCAS RA from an aircraft at 5;500 ft. The aircraft was in Class B; known to ATC but not reported to the pilots prior to the TCAS alert.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Event Description: While staff emptied a container with DG goods (ICE 9); they discovered 2 coll were not fixed.




Synopsis: Airline employee reported Hazmat not properly secured for transport.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After starting the Number Two engine; the SMOKE warning light illuminated. The Captain directed me to call the Flight Attendant and see if he noticed any indications of smoke coming from the cargo compartment. The Flight Attendant notified me there was no indication of smoke or fire visible. The Captain called Ground and asked for the fire equipment to meet the airplane; he also called Operations and notified them we were returning to the gate area. The ground crew met the airplane and we deplaned in an orderly manner.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: A DHC-8-300 Master Caution and Cargo Smoke alerted during engine start so an emergency was declared. The aircraft returned to the gate and after passengers deplaned a faulty smoke detector was discovered.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-30 Twin Comanche
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After receiving ATIS I called Tower let them know we had the current ATIS; we were 10 to the northwest inbound for a full stop landing. They advised me to report a 2 mile left base. At approximately midfield I announced 'below 150 mph; gear down.' [My student] moved the gear handle in the down position and announced 'green light; down and locked' and I said 'green light verified'. After turning left base I reported that we were about 2.5 [miles] out and we were cleared to land. I announced 'below 120 mph' and set first set of flaps. Then I showed [my student] our procedure was to push mixture to full (reds); set props to full (blues); throttles are set; and check green light (green). After turning final again I announced 'flaps full; Reds; Blues; throttles; Green light verified and we are cleared to land.' The plane touched down just past the 1000 foot marks and started rolling. As the nose wheel started to come down we felt the left side feel almost as we had a flat tire which was the left side hitting the ground. The right prop then struck the ground as the gear collapsed under us and we slid to a stop just beyond the 2000 foot mark. We exited the plane as quickly as possible and waited for fire and rescue; letting them know that we were OK.




Synopsis: PA30 flight instructor reported the landing gear was verified down with a green light; but collapsed on landing roll.