elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other N/A
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post-Flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After a two day trip; I received a call from the crew desk advising me I had a one day trip the next morning with a 10 hour 45 minutes block to block separation. I asked if I was the only reserve available and they said yes. I received just enough rest to fly the trip. While walking to my car after the flight; I received a call from the crew desk giving me a 13 hour callout [for the next morning]; field standby. I informed them I was tired and got just enough rest to fly the Mexico turn after a 10:45 block to block callout. They said the assignment was legal and I informed them if I didn't get a good night sleep I would be calling in fatigued. After driving home my body was fatigued and out of sync. It took me a while to fall asleep and when I did; the sleep shallow and uneven. I have been a reserve captain for over eleven years and I've written several reports on the legality of changing a 2 am short call to an 'all-nighter;' and I'm equally concerned about flying 10:45 block to block trips and subsequently being assigned a minimum rest trip after your return to home base. I was assigned a 10:45 block to block trip last week and it was equally tough but it was also the last trip of the week. The Bottom Line--assigning a minimum rest trip; after a 10:45 block to block trip is exhausting. A 10:45 block to block assignment will work if it's the last trip of the week; but if an additional assignment is added on the body can't recuperate fast enough. I sincerely hope NASA and any appropriate agencies will test fly a trip with west coast pilots acclimated to central or eastern time zones; returning back to the west coast and receiving a 10:45 block to block assignment. Then subsequently assigning the pilot a minimum rest trip the next day. The minimum rest after a 10:45 block to block assignment should be extended.




Synopsis: A Reserve Captain discussed his company's pilot scheduling policy which includes minimum rest periods at home between duty periods after transcontinental time changes and alternating on duty times varying from night to day.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a VFR flight. I was following the ZZZ 310 radial inbound and approximately 28 miles from the ZZZ VOR.  My plan was to turn southbound towards my home airport ZZZ1 before approaching the ZZZ area.  I was watching the floors of the Class B as I approached ZZZ; but I inadvertently crossed into the floor airspace. Upon realization of this fact I immediately turned around and descended to clear this airspace.  Not flying during the COVID-19 restrictions made me rusty and behind the airplane.




Synopsis: Pilot reported inadvertently flying into Class Bravo airspace and cited lack of flying during the COVID-19 pandemic as a contributing factor.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAT.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: Tower SAT
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked in and was immediately given a small S-turn for spacing between him and the preceding aircraft to be able to depart Aircraft Y. Everything appeared as though it would work. Aircraft Y was given an immediate takeoff clearance. As Aircraft X was in the flare; he initiated a go-around. Runway separation was close to 6000 feet and airborne but no action was taken by me because it seemed safer at that point to let the aircraft land rather than executing a go-around. It was simply a judgement call. Aircraft X was given a climb to 4000 feet and a 150 heading. I should have given Aircraft X a larger S turn or not tried to hit the gap with Aircraft X and Aircraft Y.




Synopsis: SAT Tower Controller reported an aircraft on short final initiated a go-around due to departing traffic from the same runway.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 55
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Flew through what I thought was a heavy jet wake. Very heavy turbulence momentarily. Never saw another aircraft. We were in a 100 knot plus crosswind.




Synopsis: Lear 55 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence at FL320 in ZLA airspace.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [My student and I] experienced an 80% loss of engine power on the left downwind to base leg of [the runway]. The flight was a lesson in the local traffic pattern. Immediate return for the runway was executed by the CFI and the airplane was safely landed. After the initial loss of complete engine power occurred; the engine attempted to produce power but was very minimal. Instructor and student were able to exit the runway with no harm to persons or property. The airplane was shut down after taxiing off the non-movement area to be inspected. Emergency services responded on site and the airplane was eventually towed back to its local flight school.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor Pilot reported a safe landing after experiencing an 80% loss of power in the traffic pattern.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beaver DHC-2
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was assigned to drop two passengers off at the beach. The bay is open to the ocean swell and ship wakes from the ship channel. I surveyed the landing area three times and landed without incident. While taxiing to the beach; the waves started to build. I turned back from the beach and started to taxi out toward open water. While taxiing in displacement mode; a wave broke over the floats. I immediately surveyed all engine indications and noted no discrepancies. I then tried to taxi to other beach locations to deplane the passengers. The water was too rough at this time and I was unable to get to the beach. I then flew to a marina and dropped the passengers off there. After the engine was shut down at the dock; I noted all three blades of the propeller were bent. The aircraft was grounded. I have been flying float planes for 27 years. I was unaware that a wave could reach up high enough to cause damage to the prop. I believe the main difference between regular rough water and this incident was the fact that the wave actually broke just ahead of the aircraft. This caused the floats to submarine through the wave; instead of merely riding up and over.




Synopsis: DHC2 pilot reports bent propeller blades due to contact with a breaking wave while attempting to drop passengers on a beach.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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 Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Descending for the visual to 24R in LAX we encountered some wake turbulence from a preceding 737. We experienced some rolling motions with a max bank angle around 20 degrees.  Around the final approach fix the last and largest turbulence encounter occurred and caused WINDSHEAR FAIL; STALL PROT FAIL; and AT FAIL EICAS messages. (There was also a fourth Warning Message that the FO and I could not remember once we arrived at the gate.) Once we recovered from the bank and were established on the G/S inside the FAF we decided to continue the approach given the calm weather and the aircraft handling normally. A normal approach and landing followed. On rollout; around 80 kts; the Warning Messages went away and ADS PROBE 1; 2; 3; and 4 FAIL status messages popped up instead. We verified we were OK to taxi given the messages and continued to the gate.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on visual approach to LAX Runway 24R in trail of a B737 that resulted in several system failure messages.
Date: 202109
Location: ZZZ1.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ1
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 15 minutes prior to top of descent into ZZZ we were informed that a passenger heard a pop and smelled something electrical in the vicinity of row XX. Initially the flight attendants could not verify an odor. As we began our descent; a few more passengers smelled an odor and it was confirmed by one of the flight attendants. We ran the smoke; fire; and fumes checklist to a point the fumes had dissipated. At no point was any smoke ever noticed and the fumes were only confirmed by a few passengers. By the time we completed the checklist and the odor was gone and we were in the terminal area at ZZZ. We elected to land and taxi to the gate as the odor was gone and no evidence of smoke or fire existed.




Synopsis: B-737 Captain reported Flight Attendant notification of cabin fume event during cruise which dissipated after a short time. Captain continued to destination and executed a safe landing.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PGSN.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower PGSN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While on the RNAV (GPS) Runway 25 into PGSN; the tower controller was queried as to whether the PLASI-L (Pulse Light Approach Slope Indicator) was operable and the tower controller responded there is no VASI for Runway 25. So there is no vertical visual guidance for Runway 25. Further inquiry was made on the ground about the status of the airport facilities concerning the VASI. Tower controller stated the NOTAM that stated VASI U/S (Unserviceable) has been there for four years and he does not know why our charts show a PLASI-L. He also stated that he thought one might be in the process of being installed; VASI not PLASI. So it appears our 10-9 showing PLASI-L for Runway 25 is totally incorrect. I suspect there is nothing installed for Runway 7.




Synopsis: Captain reported there is no visual vertical guidance; PLASI or VASI; available to the runway. The Jeppesen 10-9 chart shows there is a PLASI available for guidance.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
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: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Captain (pilot not flying) and it was the First Officer's takeoff. During the takeoff roll; at approximately 80 KTS; Captain observed left engine EGT fluctuating and then started to roll back. The conditions were daylight; dry; headwind and 10;500 FT of runway. Captain initiated an aborted takeoff; closed the throttles and deployed the spoilers. Autobrakes did not engage. Captain elected not to use reverse thrust and allowed the aircraft to slowly decelerate to below 80 KTS before gently applying manual brakes. Aircraft slowed to safe taxi speed and exited the runway. ATC was informed that no assistance was required. Captain made a PA to the passengers. First Officer completed all normal and abnormal checklists and brake cooling charts were referred to and acknowledged. Aircraft taxied to gate and was removed from service. The Aborted Takeoff procedure states to 'immediately initiate maximum reverse thrust consistent with conditions' I elected not to use reverse thrust due to the dry; clear and favorable environmental conditions; the speed at rejection and the runway length. Reflecting on my actions; I realized that I should have; as a minimum; engaged minimum reverse thrust. Even though conditions were ideal; use of reverse thrust is the stated procedure and I should have complied with its use. It would have only benefited my efforts by increasing the aircraft's deceleration rate and reducing the amount of runway used. This could have been accomplished while still maintaining a safe; smooth and deliberate rejected takeoff.




Synopsis: A B767-300 Captain rejected the takeoff at about 80 KTS after he detected an EGT fluctuate and roll back. Neither reverse nor heavy braking was used on the 10;000 FT runway.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CAK.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C CAK
ATC / advisory: Tower CAK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Runways 23 and 19 are closely aligned. We received vectors for a left downwind visual approach and the runway we were paralleling was actually runway 19; when we were cleared for a visual approach to runway 23. The approach was conducted at night in VMC conditions with strong crosswinds. When I turned base to final; I was momentarily lined up for runway 19 since the runway lights and VASI lights were clearly identifiable for that runway. The tower had the lights on for both intersecting runways; which made it confusing in this instance. Tower immediately noticed we were not aligned for landing runway 23; and queried on the radio. I simultaneously noticed my error since my LOC course needle to runway 23 was 'to the left' and not aligned. I was immediately able to correct to align to runway 23 while still at a maneuvering altitude of 1;000 AFE. I would recommend making a -7 page note about these two runways being closely aligned and if both runway lights are on at night and on a base to final turn; it is possible to turn and line up with runway 19 in error.




Synopsis: Air carrier vectored on a left downwind for a CAK Runway 23 night visual initially lined up on Runway 19. Both runway VASIs and runway lights were on and the runway lights appear closely aligned at night. ATC and crew became reoriented and continued the Runway 23 approach.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival we were cleared for the approach. As PM I read back 'turn right 200 degrees maintain 2;000 till established cleared for the ILS approach'. Just outside the initial approach fix; ATC informed us of a low altitude alert and were told to climb back up to 3;000 feet. Once there we were re-cleared for the ILS approach. No further incidents.I would say that fatigue was the primary culprit. When we read back the clearance it should have seemed an unusual altitude to intercept at; as the minimum altitude at the IAF is 2;600 feet. Also when I received the clearance there was chatter on guard 121.5 which could have interfered with hearing our clearance correctly.




Synopsis: Aircraft descended below cleared altitude. Low altitude alert provided by ATC resulting in flight correcting to cleared altitude.