elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were following other carrier's Boeing 777 for a planned seven-mile final.  The Captain had planned for a simulated AIII approach for training/currency.  The Captain was flying and we encountered some wake turbulence behind the B777; so Captain elected to fly slightly above the descent path; asked if I agreed; and I concurred. We were vectored to final; first heading 150; and asked if we had the field; which we called in sight.  Next vector was heading 220 to intercept final and cleared us the visual 24R.  The Captain stated we were slightly high due to the wake turbulence avoidance and began correcting.  The autopilot was disconnected and we began to configure.  The Captain then asked to verify AIII mode.  I went heads down; saw we weren't; and toggled to AIII.  During this time; we overshot 24R final slightly and began an immediate correction.  Simultaneously; Approach Control instructed us to fly a heading to re-intercept.  I do not remember the assigned heading.  The Captain intercepted final and the remainder of the approach and landing were uneventful. Perhaps we could have asked Approach for a slightly longer final as we remained above the 777 wake turbulence.  As Pilot Monitoring; at the critical phase of flight; I could have focused solely on the intercept to final rather than going heads down.


Second narrative: While the ATIS called for VFR conditions and we did have the airport in sight; it was extremely hazy. As I was transitioning my scan from the inside to the outside for the visual approach and back to the inside to check for configuration speeds; I briefly mistook Runway 24L with 24R and flew through the Localizer. I immediately corrected to re-intercept at which point the Controller called us to re-intercept from the other side. There was no conflict with other traffic that I know of.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported deviating from cleared track on approach to LAX. Wake vortex concerns and haze were contributing factors.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There is a long standing issue with Ground Taxi procedures at APA. Aircraft that require a run up are not taxied to a runway; but are taxied to a run up area adjacent to a runway prior to issuing the remainder of the instructions. Aircraft X was issued instructions to taxi to the north run up area via Alpha and he read back instructions. He taxied onto Taxiway A and proceeded past the north run up area and into the A1 ramp which was the old run up area; but according to the charts; is still part of the north run up area. Even though doing a run up in his location did not effect the operation or air safety; I instructed the aircraft to move 75-100 south to the north run up area and he complied. North run up area is incorrectly charted as the entire area north of Taxiway A2. An aircraft doing a run up in the A1 run up area is not a safety issue as the north run up area is only 100 FT from the approach end of Runway 17L. Even today; a Glassair began taxiing out of the north run up area to Runway 17L as I began to key and give him the instructions to taxi to Runway 17L even though he had not received a clearance. If you are going to make us do these procedures; that no other airport does; then fix the charts and put signs at the run up areas. Once it snows; the words Run Up will be covered and no one will know where the run up area is truly located.




Synopsis: APA Controller voiced concern regarding run up procedures and the inadequate signage for pilots regarding same.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OCF.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Pressure 29.97; 10
Aircraft: PA-20 Pacer/PA-22 Tri-Pacer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D OCF
ATC / advisory: Tower OCF
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At three miles east of the airport Tower cleared me to land on Runway 18 from base; squawking 1200. Heard Cirrus shooting ILS cleared for option on 36. When I was about 1 mile out; Tower granted frequency change to Cirrus to JAX control. Asked me if I had traffic... At that time I was watching him depart to the North from 36 said I did. Tower said he would be climbing to 2;000 FT. I never heard a heading for the Cirrus. At 1/2 mile base a white plane appeared in my windscreen heading southeast; basically entering the 18 pattern wrong direction and just barely passed overhead. It was hazy and never saw him until then; after the initial sighting on his departure; of course I was setting up to turn final; etc. I said something to the Tower [a Cirrus type aircraft] just passed very close overhead; he said was under JAX control. When I landed I suggested to Tower that was mighty close. He never asked if I wanted to file anything. So when I got home later that day discussed with my colleagues and reviewed AIM. I would have thought Tower would have routed this guy away from landing traffic especially if his route of flight was reversed over the set landing pattern to the south for 18. I am a VFR pilot and don't know the details of these 'Missed approach' patterns; etc. We were the only two planes in the airport vicinity. I also had my landing lights on. The Cirrus pilot sounded Asian and was difficult to understand. We get many foreign students in this area of Florida. I think there may be some procedural issues here.




Synopsis: PA22 pilot reports a NMAC arriving OCF after being cleared for a left base entry for Runway 18 by the Tower; with Cirrus cleared for the option on 36 off an instrument approach. The Cirrus departs initially to the north but as some point turns southeast bound coming dangerously close to the reporter. The Tower indicates the Cirrus is talking to ZJX.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C MDW
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching the SAILZ waypoint; our assigned altitude was 3500 feet due to previous conflicting traffic at 2500 feet prior to turning inbound to SAILZ. As we approached SAILZ; the FMS was tracking LNAV towards SAILZ; our altitude was 3500 feet and we were given a traffic call that VFR traffic was at 3000 feet at our 12 o'clock. At approximately 1.5 miles prior to SAILZ; the Controller instructed us to turn 20 degrees right due to the traffic. I believe our aircraft had just completed rolling out; so it seemed as though the Pilot Flying had indeed dialed in 20 degrees to the right. I failed to monitor heading select and we were still in LNAV directly towards SAILZ when we should have been turning to the right of SAILZ according to the instruction. At the time the Controller instructed us to expedite our turn; we received an RA due to the traffic at SAILZ; which was climbing to 3200 feet as we maintained level 3500 feet. We followed the RA guidance and quickly cleared the conflict. Additional distractions that contributed to the RA were: ATC radio congestion which distracted both pilots from following immediate instructions from ATC and confusion as to why other aircraft were conflicting our approach to land under IFR handling; despite the VMC day.I believe that VFR traffic should not be allowed to transit an IFR corridor at the same altitude as the inbound traffic to land. This poses a significant threat to commercial aviation and could result in a midair collision; clearly an unacceptable outcome for something that can be avoided.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported a track deviation resulted in an airborne conflict during approach into MDW.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Destination forecast predicted very windy and gusty conditions with strong crosswinds at the time of arrival. Various wind advisories were reported in the terminal area. During the arrival briefing I had checked that the crosswind did not exceed recommended aircraft crosswind limitations. Ten knots was added to Vref due to reported gusts; as a buffer and precautionary measure. The approach was stable all the way to touchdown with the occasional gusts and airspeed fluctuations from time to time. But throughout the approach the aircraft remained in a stable approach configuration. Right at touchdown (as the main wheels touched the ground) we experienced a significant gust of wind; forcing the right wing to dip. I immediately corrected with appropriate control input; followed by full left control input to keep the right wing from striking the ground. Full control inputs were made in an attempt to keep the aircraft stable and on the runway resulting in the engine pods #3 and #4 being scraped. The wind gust had momentarily exceeded the aileron authority at the time based on the airspeed during rollout. The gust happened so suddenly and quickly that there was not enough time to contemplate a go-around; except for immediately reacting to keep the right wingtip from dipping further and maintain some level of control and to keep the airplane on the runway. Upon further contemplation; a go-around would have put the aircraft in a less desirable condition at such a slow speed with the main wheels already on the ground. Consider delaying flights to arrive with more favorable weather conditions. Consider increasing crosswind limits to a more restrictive company standard.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the right wing engine pods were scraped during a gusty crosswind landing.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were cleared to fl340 for crossing traffic; on our way direct to LEATO intersection; northwest of FNT VOR.  We were not given any traffic to look for. After a few minutes we were cleared to continue climb to FL380. Not long around FL350 we hit one hard bump/jolt which resulted in passengers hitting their heads on the ceiling and one person also hitting her face on the table leaf that had folded during the encounter.  Right afterwards when checking for traffic I saw to the right of the aircraft out the window what looked like what was left of a contrail but could not see the generating airplane. I believe we had encountered some wake turbulence. After checking with the passengers they asked us to return to our departure airport due to a passenger injury. We asked ATC to return to our departure airport. ATC asked about the nature of injuries. When landing we told the tower that we had things under control and did not need any further assistance. I did not think the encounter was 'severe' as I still had my seatbelts fastened during the encounter and did not hit my head on anything. One of our company mechanics did a severe turbulence inspection anyway of the aircraft and did not find any defects; returning the plane to service.


Second narrative: We were cleared to climb to FL400. We asked for FL380 as our final. We were re-cleared to FL380. 300 feet prior to FL340; Cleveland Center asked us to maintain FL340. After a couple minutes they cleared us to climb to FL380. Shortly after we initiated the climb; we got a strong jolt from the left. We both looked out our windows and saw a contrail and determined that we had just hit wake turbulence. The weather was clear and there was no turbulence prior to the one strong jolt we received. The autopilot did not disengage. We did not have any warnings from our TCAS. ATC did not point out any traffic. We had two passengers on board. One had hit her head so we asked ATC for a turn back to our originating airport. The passenger ended up being fine and we landed at normally.


Synopsis: CE-560  Captain reported 'one hard bump' from a possible wake encounter at FL350 that resulted in a passenger injury.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On our takeoff roll; prior to 80KIAS; we received an EICAS warning 'E2 OVERTEMP' and the associated warning bell.  The #2 ITT indicator turned red.  We rejected the takeoff and exited the runway. We ran all the memory items followed by the QRC and the QRH.  E2 EXCEEDANCE message remained on EICAS and the QRH procedure states 'do not take off; report to maintanence personnel'.  We contacted operations and returned to the gate.  Maintenance believed the cause to be the result of attempting a takeoff from a high altitude airport on a hot day with the right engine anti ice valve deferred in the open position. Somewhat later maintenance brought the aircraft back and advised they had downloaded the recorded and it had not registered a fault.  They had performed an engine run up and it was good. The plane was boarded back up and we gave it a second try. All indications were normal during engine startup and while taxiing both engines showed equal readings. The First Officer and I briefed and double checked everything we could think of to back ourselves up and be safe.We were cleared for take off on runway 25; I advanced the thrust levers normally and called 'set thrust'. The First Officer responded 'thrust set' and we both saw that all the targets were met and ATTCS was armed. I noticed that the ITT on the number two engine was higher than the number one engine and at around 60 KIAS the ITT indicator on the number two engine turned red and on the EICAS we both saw ATTCS NO MARGIN warning message as we got the master warning light and bells. Both of us called the message and I proceeded to abort the take off. We advised tower and we exited the runway normally; stopped on the taxiway and ran the memory items followed by the QRC and the QRH. We again contacted operations and returned to the gate




Synopsis: When dispatched with a deferred open right engine anti-ice valve the flight crew of an EMB-145 suffered an ITT over temperature prior to 80 KIAS on the takeoff roll.  They rejected the takeoff; returned to the gate for maintenance and suffered a recurrence of the event after maintenance had discovered nothing in the aircraft's maintenance system recordings.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Citation I (C500)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting OJT on Final Center. CE500 was on the west downwind for Runway 01C at ZZZ my trainee turned CE500 to a 090 heading and descend to five thousand from six thousand. After several miles it appeared that CE500 was not turning; the pilot was questioned if they were turning and he responded yes; he was then instructed to turn to a 040 heading and intercept the localizer for Runway 01C. After several more miles of a very slow turn; CE500 was told to increase his rate of turn and maintain five thousand and that he was sequenced in front of six thousand traffic straight in (CE560). At this point I told the trainee to turn CE500 out and re-sequence him because of his slow turn. CE500 was turned to a 300 heading and told to maintain 050 at which point CE500 began to climb out of 052 and still heading East. CE500 was then told to descend immediately to 050 and to expedite his turn to 300 and told about traffic at his 3 o'clock and three miles at 060. CE500 continued to climb through 057 to 064 and still not turning to the West. I then took the frequency and told CE560 to turn immediately to a 090 and called traffic at 12 o'clock and 1 mile climbing out of 064 a Citation. They answered that they were responding to a TCAS/RA. After CE500 final turned to the West; the trainee turned him back on to the downwind but the turn was too tight and it resulted in CE500 begin to close to Aircraft Z on the straight in on Runway 01C. After the upsetting situation with CE500 and CE560 I should have kept the frequency until all situations were resolved and we could be relieved of position duties. By letting the trainee resume working; and that fact that I was still thinking about what had just occurred; I missed the shallow turn on CE500 which put them to close to the final.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a TCAS RA event during a training session with parallel approaches in use; the reporter noting that he should have continued to work the position after the initial TCAS RA in lieu of returning the position to the trainee.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-12
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I took off from ZZZ airport on Runway XXR and experienced a power-loss at 100 feet of altitude.I put down the nose and landed my aircraft in a controlled manner on the grass in the prolongation of Runway XXR. There was no injury; nor any damage to the aircraft or any airport property. This event does not meet the definition of an 'aircraft accident' under 49 C.F.R. Part 830 since there were no 'serious injuries' and no 'substantial damage.




Synopsis: Vans RV-12 pilotreported 'power loss at 100 feet during takeoff.