elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Hail; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E L30
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival in to LAS there was a thunderstorm with virga and potential hail on the course near FUZZY. The Controller issued a descent to 11;000 FT. As we were descending we saw the need to deviate due to the downdraft; rain and possible hail while we were in VMC conditions and with the terrain in sight. Our radio transmission failed to let the Controller know we had the terrain in sight; which alarmed him. We were asked to contact the Approach Supervisor on the radio. We apologized for not having told him we had the terrain in sight.


Second narrative: During descent on the SUNST 3 Arrival into LAS; we were deviating for weather near the FUZZY Intersection. At the time; we were deviating in visual conditions and could clearly see higher terrain to the east of the FUZZY Intersection. Descending through 14;000 FT; I told ATC we were turning 'about 10 left for weather'. The pilot flying turned more like 40 degrees; and went out high right of descent; we may have caught ATC off guard and they issued us a low altitude alert to stop our descent and turn right. At no time did we get any alerts in the cockpit. As ATC was issuing the alert; we were already leveling off at 12;000 FT and turning back toward the STAR. I think I could have told ATC that we were VMC and also made sure I understood what the pilot flying was planning on doing. Had I expected more then a 10 degree turn I would have suggested that we turn right.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reports deviating for weather during the SUNST 3 arrival to LAS without properly informing ATC of the magnitude of the deviation and the fact that they had the terrain in sight.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: There was an active SIGMET that was not known to the sector I was relieving. A SIGMET for forecast severe turbulence between 25000 and 40000 feet. The SIGMET potentially affected every aircraft in the sector. It is a position responsibility of the Controller in Charge/Front Line Manager to enter and update SIGMETs in ATOP platform. Since the position responsibility was not fulfilled; I requested the Front Line Manager that the SIGMET be entered in the system. I was going to enter the SIGMET and was told 'NO.' Refusing to do this has very serious safety implications if not done correctly every time. It appears from the incident described that one or more people who are qualified to work the position but do not know their position responsibilities. This particular incident also indicated a disturbing lack of teamwork or regard for the safety of air traffic. This has recently been brought as a 'problem' in the high area and it would appear it is not being properly addressed. I filed a similar ATSAP about 2 years ago and again it has not been properly addressed. The Front line Manager did not like the way that Russia writes the geographical parameters of their weather information so they made the decision to not give the pilots or the controller the information.Train or re-train qualified Front Line Managers on their position responsibilities. Re-training on significant meteorological conditions. Train team concept/support of operation. Enter and update SIGMETs; and do the rest of SOP ATOP Front Line Manager position responsibilities.




Synopsis: ZAN ARTCC Controller reported their Front Line Manager refused to disseminate pertinent SIGMETs to the appropriate sectors.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working Arrivals; VFR weather with very good visual approaches. The session was very busy with westerly winds complicating the situation. The bases were fast and compression on the final was substantial. Aircraft X requested an ILS autoland approach for currency. I cleared Aircraft X at the marker for an ILS approach and assigned him 160 knots to 5 mile final. I brought Aircraft Y behind him and slowed the aircraft down early to maintain Wake Turbulence separation. I cleared Aircraft Y for the visual approach with 5.5 miles separation and assigned the flight 160 knots to 5 mile final and I instructed him to contact the tower. As I monitored the final I realized that Aircraft Y was compressing too much on the heavy Aircraft X; I immediately called the tower and I instructed them to break Aircraft Y out to a 270 heading and to climb and maintain 4000 feet. Aircraft Y was still within the Wake Turbulence parameters at 5.01 NM behind the heavy. The local controller replied 'I think we have visual...hold on'; 5 second break then 'Yes we have visual'. I let it go and it compressed further to 4.8 NM. As I thought about the situation and knowing that the Tower controllers cannot waive wake turbulence separation unless the aircraft waives it with visual separation I was left wondering if that is what the tower meant. As this was a specific occurrence due to bad winds and compression I see no recommendation I can give. This was a very busy session with difficult winds; maybe there should have been a consideration to using a different runway.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported of two aircraft on final that were going to lose wake turbulence separation. TRACON Controller advised Tower Controller to break the trailing aircraft out and relayed go around instructions. Tower Controller advised TRACON Controller they would apply tower visual separation between the aircraft.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was a passenger in the right seat; I hold a private pilots license with X00hrs total time. Only Y hours in a Cessna 210.Pilot botched the landing; bounced once then landed on the nose. Aircraft made a hard left turn. Pilot showed no actions to straighten out the aircraft. As it was apparent we were exiting the runway I intervened; giving full right rudder and pulled aft on the yoke to avoid a nose gear collapse. The plane crossed taxiway then down the embankment. Aircraft rolled out in the dirt between [the parallel runways]. The pilot took command of the aircraft at that point and taxied back on to [the runway] where we were instructed to taxi off and hold short of [the parallel runway]. Aircraft was taxied to parking were it was tied. I did not observe any damage nor did I hear about any property damage.




Synopsis: Private pilot rated passenger reported he took the controls after the flying pilot lost directional control on the landing roll and departed the runway surface with no damage or injuries.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I checked in with the gate agent prior to my flight to ZZZZ.  I don't recall if any passengers were boarded but there were no passengers that I remember waiting to check in because it was still pretty early.  As I walked down the jet bridge I noticed a Flight Attendant walking the opposite direction.  I had not met her prior as I had not been to the aircraft yet.  She told me she was trying to get better cellular reception so she could complete her COVID-19 form which is required for entry into ZZZZ.  When I boarded the aircraft; I met the other two FAs.  At no time did I notice any passengers boarding or on our aircraft.  After checking the aircraft maintenance log; flight documents; etc. I briefed the A FA.  I only briefed the A FA as passengers were now being boarded.  I assumed the other two flight attendants were on board.  I was completely unaware that we didn't have minimum crew while boarding.  Approximately 10-15 minutes prior to departure; the A1 FA informed me that she was informed that we had boarded without minimum crew.  I think the COVID-19 online form (for ZZZZ) was the reason that caused this problem.  I fly this trip nearly every week and it's generally always a bit of a scramble at the last minute to get the form completed by all crew members prior to departure.  In addition it is a very difficult form to electronically fill out for the first time.  I believe the FA was only trying her best to complete the form prior to boarding. Perhaps a reminder to both cockpit and cabin crew that a COVID-19 declaration form is required for entry into ZZZZ.  And that the form takes a while to complete as it NOT intuitive and can take a few attempts to complete it and requires sufficient WiFi or cellular signal.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported the aircraft was boarded without minimum FA crew because the FAs were late completing COVID-19 declaration form.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Piper Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared for takeoff and fly runway heading out of the class delta airspace of ZZZ. Their radar was out of service so all departing aircraft were cleared to depart runway heading until exiting the class delta. I was cleared after a twin piper got cleared the same way. The piper started deviating south south west out of the class delta. I reached the same altitude and once outside the class delta noticed the piper suddenly turn left towards me [at] roughly the same altitude. I descended to avoid the aircraft and turned away. My collision avoidance system warned me multiple times about the traffic conflict once the other aircraft turned towards me.Going forward in the same situation I will maintain a slower speed so that I will remain behind the slower aircraft until I have a clearer picture of their intention.This also highlights that this situation is far more tricky than flying out of an uncontrolled field where aircraft continuously communicate their intentions.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported an NMAC during takeoff requiring evasive action.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Indications
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at cruise; right about to begin descent; or right after beginning descent; we received a 'ENG L BRG OVHT' message. at the time we were IMC; with moderate rain; and light turbulence. We had a hard time communicating with ATC because of suspected static build up on the radio; but after referencing the QRH and understanding the nature of the situation; we notified ATC and requested further descent to 10;000 ft. the QRH ultimately instructed us to shut down the engine; and as we descended further we gained normal communications with ATC; and even encountered VMC conditions. We notified tower we would be stopping on the runway; and after the all clear from the fire department we taxied in without further incident. I'm unsure of what caused the issue. The only thing I can think about is the heavy rain we flight through multiple times that day. It could have been a bad sensor is what maintenance suggested.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported an 'ENG L BRG OVHT' message and shut down the engine. The pilot reported difficulty communicating with ATC due to radio interference.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autothrottle/Speed Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Takeoff rejected due to autothrottle disengagement. Throttle advanced normally; then paused; then reduced to idle at 30 knots. Cleared runway.


Second narrative: We were cleared for takeoff. Upon power up; we received an Autopilot Disconnect Alert and we rejected the takeoff well below 80 knots.


Synopsis: B737 MAX 8 flight crew reported an uneventful rejected takeoff due to an uncommanded auto-throttle disengagement.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Snow
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The nose of the aircraft slide across the hold short line of [Runway] XXR. We advised Tower that the nose came across the hold short line. They issued an abort for a AC that was just issued a take off clearance on [Runway] XXR. The Tower thanked us for letting them know soon because the aircraft did not initiate the takeoff role. There was active snow and the hold short line and sine was covered in snow. As I preceded to stop the aircraft it was on ice so it slide to a stop just past the hold short line. The nose was between 5 feet to10 feet past the line The taxiing was difficult because of all the snow very slippery there were many times that the ac was slipping. It would have been nice if the taxi services were plowed and treated. The hold short sine was covered in snow and was difficult to see with the active snow.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported sliding past the hold short line for the active runway and informing the Tower Controller who instructed a landing aircraft to go around.
Date: 201510
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On this flight almost immediately after the safety demo we heard the engines revving and tried to make it to our assigned jump seats as soon as possible but 3 of the crew were unable to. Two crew members strapped into vacant passenger seats and the Flight Attendant sat down on the floor bracing herself.


Second narrative: PA for Flight Attendants (FA) to be seated was not given or it was made but did not broadcast.On this flight and almost immediately after the safety demo we heard the engines revving and tried to make it to our assigned seats as soon as possible; but 3 of the crew were unable. 2 crew members strapped into vacant passenger seats and [one FA] sat down on the floor bracing herself.


Synopsis: An air carrier Flight Attendant reported the flight began takeoff roll without allowing sufficient time for the flight attendants to get to their jump seats.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FUL.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: 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 Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While conducting a practice VOR A approach to FUL in VFR conditions with a safety pilot onboard I was executing the published procedure turn and made a left turn inbound instead of a right turn as published on the approach plate. I had set the approach into the GPS to use for situational awareness only and was using the SLI VOR for navigation since this was a VOR A approach (not a GPS approach). The [GPS] displayed the procedure turn; but since the aircraft was past the point where the initial turn outbound was drawn on the display; it appeared that a left turn was needed to follow the graphic displayed on the GPS screen. I blindly followed the graphic display instead of confirming on the approach plate the correct direction to turn inbound. SCT Approach immediately queried us on which direction we were turning inbound and pointed out that the procedure turn should be a right turn; not a left turn. This is a good lesson in not blindly using technology and to always cross check to confirm you are flying what is published on the approach plate.




Synopsis: Pilot made incorrect turn to initiate the VOR A approach to FUL due to misinterpretation of the GPS graphic display.