elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOS.Airport, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to our takeoff; a B757; an A321 and a Q400 departed. We took off and immediately experienced wake turbulence associated with the previous departures. The RNAV SID calls for a nearly immediate and large course change to the east at 520 feet. At 500 feet I called for autopilot on to comply with best practices for RNAV SIDs. At acceleration altitude the Pilot Monitoring (PM) called acceleration altitude. Because the autopilot was on; we both reached for the FGC SPD button. I said; since the autopilot is on; I command the FGC. I called for flaps up. The First Officer (FO) subsequently ran the After Takeoff checklist. As the Pilot Flying (PF); I was saturated with flying the airplane as the departure has several short tight turning legs. Once we got up and out of the terminal airspace; I lowered the nose to accelerate the aircraft. At that time the aircraft wasn't accelerating normally. I scanned the cockpit and observed the Flaps were still in the 9 position. I observed our speed at that time to be 261 KIAS. I immediately reduced thrust to below 250 KIAS and retracted the flaps. We continued the flight and landed without incident. Made an AML entry. Cause: high workload and task saturation. This was an error that was made during a high workload time period and the associated confusion of who manipulates the FGC during an autopilot on departure for RNAV SID compliance. As such; a thorough debrief and review of the after takeoff checklist and flow is my suggestion. Also; highlighting the PF/PM duties and how they change depending on whether the autopilot is turn on at 500 feet or just the YD is turned on.


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


Synopsis: Embraer jet flight crew reported a wake turbulence encounter combined with a complex departure resulted in failure to retract flaps on schedule.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [We were] initially given [our] departure PDC on ground. This is a SID for 26L/R only. Was re-cleared on ground to 19R [and depart via the SID] transition then AF. Upon reaching 19R; was told taxi across 19R and hold short 19L. Immediately reloaded departure runway and SID in FMS. Since the departure was already loaded; reloading the same SID with a different runway dropped off the transition and did not prompt the specific departure transition. We verified initial SID waypoints and were cleared for immediate takeoff. We experienced many altitude changes upon climb out and were given a heading off the SID for traffic. We were then given [a departure fix] with no specific rejoin the SID instruction. Since FMS dropped off the SID transition during the last minute runway change; we flew [ZZZ VOR] and missed the [two] transitional fixes. Center asked where we were going just after and we stated Flight planned route to [ZZZ VOR]. He noted direct [ZZZ VOR]. We then realized the FMS had dropped off [a fix and ZZZ VOR]. No traffic or airspace incursions were noted.




Synopsis: A Gulfstream Captain reported that reloading the FMC after a runway change; using the same SID; some of the waypoints dropped out.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During taxi into the gate; about halfway into gate with aircraft straight and on the taxi line for gate X; taxiing approximately 2 kts; the #1 engine was shutdown. Due to the uphill ramp at ZZZ the jet quickly started to stagnate a couple feet shy of the parking spot. As minimal power was added to #2; the nose of the jet veered hard left due to the ramp being a sheet of ice. The jet contacted a B757 stair stand on it's bumper just outside the silhouette before coming to a stop. The Captain initiated full opposite tiller; rudder; and brakes but the jet continued to slide until contacting the stand. The parking brake was set; the jet shutdown and towed into the gate without further incident. A maintenance inspection revealed no damage to the aircraft. Parking ramp covered in ice with an uphill grade into the parking spot caused the aircraft to veer left during [automatic parking] into the gate.  Recommend after discussing with ZZZ maintenance that company pages add a note about the uphill ramp gradient and prohibit [automatic parking] during any inclement weather conditions. Better plowing equipment would also help clear the ramp of snow and ice.


Second narrative: As we pulled into ramp parking spot X with aircraft straight and taxiing approximately 2 knots we shutdown #1 Eng.  As aircraft approached stopping point aircraft decelerated to almost a stop.  To prevent aircraft from stopping I added a little power to prevent aircraft from stopping and aircraft began an aggressive left turn into gate striking a B757 gate adjacent to our parking spot.  Parking brake was set. Damage inspection revealed no damage and aircraft was towed into gate without further incident.Packed ice on snow covered ramp that has a steep upgrade hill pulling into parking caused the aircraft to veer off to the left during [automatic parking] ops into gate.I suggest from talking with maintenance that our [company] pages in Jeppesen manuals need to describe the steep gradient when pulling into the gate areas on the Ramp.  Due to these factors of steep gradient and icy ramp conditions.  Our [company] pages should state in any inclement WX [Automatic Parking] ops are prohibited.  This will prevent any similar incidence in the future.


Synopsis: Pilots reported losing control of the aircraft while trying to park the aircraft.  Aircraft slid into gate resulting in no damage.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ASE; Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Tower ASE
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was VFR; flew through the departure area at 13;000; where aircraft climb to 16;000 then through the final at a point where arrivals cross through that altitude on descent.  Aircraft Y had to be vectored off the approach path to avoid conflict.  Aircraft Z had to be kept higher than normal to avoid the conflict and was high entering the approach; making it difficult to get to the airport.Aspen has the difficulty of high mountains and high MVA's; aircraft have limited availability to stop climbs; descents on final are through narrow corridors and the approach path is steep.  VFR aircraft not in communication with ATC are a safety risk because we cannot know their intentions; verify altitude or issue control instructions to avoid conflict.  Aspen needs controlled airspace that requires 2 way communication.




Synopsis: Aspen Tower Controller reported problems associated with aircraft in relationship to the high terrain and high MVA's surrounding the airport.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMU.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower MMU
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was the CPC training on Local Control. The Developmental being trained cleared aircraft 1 for take off while Aircraft 2 was on short final. Aircraft 1 advised Tower that there was an aircraft on short final and the Developmental immediately cancelled Aircraft 1's take off clearance and told them to hold short of the runway. After discussing the incident the main reason the Developmental cleared aircraft 1 for take off was the fact that he didn't see Aircraft 2 on short final because the windsock obstructs our view of the flight path of all aircraft landing Runway 23. Since the actual Tower is being rehabilitated and the windsock is a very big obstruction to our vantage point in the mobile Tower; I suggest the windsock be relocated or taken down until we return to the actual Tower.




Synopsis: MMU Controller described a take off clearance not accepted by the departing aircraft because of traffic on short final; the Controller noting the Tower visibility from the temporary tower is obstructed by the wind sock location.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Company is applying flight time restrictions wrongly to exceed the flight time of their crews who fly to the U.S. As example; a flight ZZZZ to ZZZ is around 14 hours block time; 4 crew flights. They don't compute the time in the rest (bunk) towards the total flight time; so they only log 7 hrs each way. Crews are flying more than 130 hrs a month and logging less than 100 hours; all this with the consent of the Foreign Civil Aviation Authority. With more than 100 flights to U.S. each week this is a huge safety threat to all. On top of that the rest are they getting in some U.S. destinations after these long flights is less than 24 hrs in the rest facility (hotel). For obvious reasons this cannot be raised to Company or Foreign Civil Aviation Authority.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported a foreign air carrier does not include crew rest time during flights as flight time and is not complying with FAR's regarding crew rest after long overseas flights.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TUL.TRACON, OK
Aircraft: Helicopter
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D RVS
ATC / advisory: TRACON TUL
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I got the briefing for Operational Supervisor/Controller In Charge (OS/CIC) and went on break; after I had taken Radar from the previous controller; I got a phone call from the pilot of Aircraft X.  I took down the information he gave me about an event that took place earlier.  He informed me that earlier that evening he was doing an ILS approach into RVS VFR and was switched to advisory frequency.  He said the approach controller then vectored Aircraft Y to the same runway IFR.  From what I gathered from the information; I thought that the helicopter was not being provided IFR separation services.  He said that he was inbound on the approach and decided to break off the approach and was nearly missed by Aircraft Y who was closing in behind him.  He said that when Aircraft Y checked on advisory frequency; there was not enough time for him to respond with a position report.  Brief all controllers on the appropriate procedures for having an IFR aircraft being vectored for the visual approach behind a VFR aircraft conducting the instrument approach into an uncontrolled airport.




Synopsis: A TUL Tracon Controller reported of a helicopter that was on an approach being followed by a jet. The helicopter elected to break off the approach because of the close proximity. The Controller wanted the facility to brief all controllers on the appropriate procedures for having IFR aircraft vectored for the visual approach behind VFR aircraft.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown; 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: During my compliance check I noticed Passenger X did not have a mask on. Passenger X's face was covered with a hoodie. I asked Passenger X to put a mask on and the reply was 'no I will not.' Passenger X was going to use the hoodie because it was a barrier. Passenger X started to shout at me and continued to tell me the hoodie would stay on. Passenger X started to go on about how a mask doesn't protect anyone; so at that point I said I would be back right back. Because he wanted to escalate the situation I went up to tell the A Flight Attendant; she came back and explained to Passenger X the company's policy. Passenger X's wife [also] added that the mask doesn't protect anyone. In the middle of flight; he then again put a blanket on his head and the mask was completely off.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger did not comply with the face mask policy.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: Trainee
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
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
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a training flight; my student and I were conducting stop and go landings. After takeoff we retracted the landing gear and upon full retraction; I simulated an engine failure by reducing the throttle to idle. My student put the gear handle in the down position lowering the landing gear and proceeded to carry out the rest of the emergency procedures as outlined in the Emergency Checklist. After completing the emergency procedures; I gave him back his engine and told him to execute a missed procedure. Upon attaining a positive rate of climb the student raised the gear. When the gear reached full retraction; we heard a noise from the back of the airplane. I told my student we were going back to the airport to make a precautionary landing. Upon lowering the landing gear handle; I discovered that there was no green light giving us a positive gear down indication and no wheel visible out my window. We spent about an hour and a half after that burning off fuel; discussing our options; troubleshooting using the Gear Failure Checklist; and going through all of the Emergency Checklist items for a gear up landing. Recycling the landing gear several times did not remedy the situation. We also tried using the emergency gear pump to lower the gear. This did not work either. We called airport operations to get emergency crews on the scene. After discussing our options with each other and ground support; we made the decision to do several practices approaches to get ready for a gear up landing on the runway.


Second narrative: [This report contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: A C-172RG landing gear did not extend for landing so the instructor and student burned fuel down; completed all checklists and made a successful gear up landing.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E L30
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Clearances from LAS Departure are getting more confusing. As all the RNAV SIDs have altitude crossing restrictions; pre-departure clearances (PDC's) state 'FL190' and 'comply with all restrictions'. On a previous departure; upon initial contact; Departure Control responded 'Climb to 190' which I understood to mean climb as cleared by our PDC and to comply with all restrictions. The other pilot's interpretation; however; was to just climb to FL190 which deletes all restrictions. When we asked for clarification we were told to comply with all restrictions. On a later departure; however; we received the same clearance but; when we again inquired; we received an 'unrestricted climb' clearance. The phraseology used by LAS Departure Control is very confusing. 'Restricted and unrestricted' sound very much alike. We discussed the situation along with a jumpseater while in cruise and we all had different interpretations.Any other airport uses 'climb and maintain' or 'delete restrictions' or 'comply with restrictions.' Please; clarification on these clearances is needed.




Synopsis: An A319 Captain addressed his confusion with terminology used by LAS Departure with regard to complying with altitude restrictions on the RNAV SID's when flights first check in after takeoff and established on their climb to FL190 per their PDC assigned SID.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: ZBW transitioned to new Q routing's through our Kingston Sector. We have had trouble with transitioning to the new routes; both en route and with proposals. At times; it seems the HOST is against us; as it applies existing PDR and PDAR routing's which contradicts the Q routing structure. Today all the proposals had been checked; but as is my habit; I rechecked them as time allowed. There were four proposals off of BDL for IAD. Scanning them; I saw 2 of the 4 were bad. Actually; as I learned later; 3 of 4 were bad. We need a PDAR from BDL to IAD to catch these bad proposals. Staff says it is not possible. They cannot create a PDAR that incorporates an arrival; in this case; the HYPER3. If that is the case; why do we have an arrival that extends all the way up to ALB (Albany; NY) and BAF (Barnes; MA) serving a Washington DC airport? We need a preferred route that HOST can apply between BDL and IAD. There is no help in this matter from staff; they have washed their hands of this problem. They say it is the controller's job; even when the HOST is introducing blue HERT routing that contradicts the new Q route structure that staff put in place.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller voiced concern regarding the new 'Q' routing system that seems to contradict the HOST PDR/PDAR efforts. The reporter noted that the facility staff has been less than helpful in resolving this issue.