elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BGF.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G BGF
ATC / advisory: CTAF BGF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While landing at the Winchester airport (BGF) on runway 18 at night with the runway lights set to medium intensity the new LED runway lights began to flash. As I continued the approach; I noted that the flashing was as a result of my fluctuating the propeller RPM. FYI; my airplane has a 3 bladed propeller. As I adjusted the propeller RPM on the approach; at in and around 22-2300 RPM; the runway lights could be dimmed to near off. As the RPM fluctuated; the flashing rate could be adjusted! At times of low visibility on a dark night; this could be catastrophic! When the pilot is just breaking out of the weather; the dimming or flashing of the runway lights could be conceived at re-entering the weather causing a go around.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of problems associated with landing and LED lights flashing while on final.
Date: 201812
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Latitude (C680A)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ATC expects flyover and the FMC reads flyby (SID depicts flyby)We were issued an obscure clearance out of San Jose which read SJC 2 departure to the MOONY intersection back to the SJC VOR and onward to the BMRNG intersection. The MOONY intersection is not a fly over way point so the FMS turned back to the north towards the SJC VOR well short of the way point. This brought the attention of the Controller who explained to us that we were off course turning 20 miles north of this 180 degree turn as the FMS is designed to do since it is not a fly over waypoint. He advised us this is a nav deviation and he would be filing paper work on it and advised us to do the same. I called NorCal once we were en route and had a constructive conversation about what went wrong. [The NCT representative] explained that this has happened before and I explained why the FMS turned when it did. [My First Officer] pulled up an article explaining how the FMC/FMS works which depicts a very similar scenario. I asked [the NCT representative] if he had seen this publication. Whether he has seen it or not; I did suggest that a track needs to be published depicting a fly over waypoint for the MOONY intersection or realistically a point closer to the VOR than the MOONY intersection. By the time we turn downwind on this departure we were at 7500 feet well clear of inbound traffic as well as the terrain.


Second narrative: The easy fix to this issue would be to assign a valid transition on the SJC2; either PXN or AVE which would allow the FMS to proceed all the way to MOONY instead of smart turn to SJC. ATC could issue a radar vector to to SJC as time permits.Another solution would be to revise the SID to modify MOONY to a fly-over waypoint.A third possibility is to add MOONY as a valid transition with a manual sequence heading after MOONY.The primary issue is that the personnel designing the SID do not consider fly-by vs fly-over.


Synopsis: CE-680 flight crew reported ATC indentified a track deviation when the FMC performed a fly-by rather than a fly-over departing SJC.
Date: 201403
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Preflight planning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The 45 minute check in is not long enough to conduct a safe and thorough preflight. Not if you follow the checklist in the iPad. Add to that KCM [Known Crewmember security check] being closed (+10 mins) Farthest gate in the terminal; a major winter storm at your destination; and two computers unable to print flight papers because of an error. Adds up to a crew delay every time; including this flight. The co-pilot going to the jet to get it ready while the Captain does all the preflight paperwork by himself is UNSAFE; but is becoming the EVOLVING SOP at this company.




Synopsis: B757 Captain laments the 45 minute check in for the first flight of the day as insufficient for a variety of reasons.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
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: Workload
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing out on ZZZZZ Intersection Departure off of 7L; we began to smell a fairly strong odor/fume in the flight deck. As we continued our climb the odor seemed to clear out of the cockpit. I could not smell the odor. Several communications with the cabin crew confirmed the odor was still present; and stronger towards the back of the aircraft. We then requested clearance back to [departure airport]. We donned the oxygen masks. ACARS was not working; so we had to use [an alternative method] for our landing performance; which added to our work load. Communication with the cabin crew; ATC; Dispatch; arrival programming ; and performance; ATIS; Descent and Approach Checklists; and [landing performance calculations] kept us at a fairly high-task loading throughout the event. I had an extremely experienced; exceptional First Officer who kept us in the Green while I was task loaded with all communications; checklists and performance data. After landing we requested [ground] vehicle follow us to the gate for any signs of smoke. There was none. Our cabin crew stated there were no signs of lasting ill effects with any cabin crew members or passengers.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported returning to departure airport after fumes and odor were noticed in the cabin and the cockpit.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E D10
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
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: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the climb out; ATC had us restricted to 250 knots while we were climbing from 10;000 feet to 17;000 feet. They gave us normal speed out of 14;000 feet. On the climb we started to get very sharp bumps and they started to get closer and more intense. We both thought it could be wake from the plane ahead as the winds were a direct head wind of almost 60 knots. We told ATC and got a vector off as a precaution before it got worse. I called the FA (Flight Attendant) later and everyone was fine. We notified the Dispatcher about it to notify [Operations Control]. We continued to [our destination] with no other issues and landed safely. On the ground; I called the Chief Pilot per the reportable events.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence climbing out of DFW.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This was a simple clear cut error that occurred during a skill check on North RADAR. I was working Local Control. C182 was cleared for take off and assigned runway heading. North RADAR immediately turned C182 on course (approximately 290) and assigned FL100. When C182 crossed the 3 NM circle around an antenna farm his altitude indicated 1;300 FT-1;400 FT. The highest antenna is 1;549 FT. EVEN IN THE FRONT PAGES OF THE APPROACH PLATES; IT INSTRUCTS PILOTS NOT TO TURN WEST UNTIL LEAVING 1500 FEET!!! The .65 clearly says; in the paragraph titled 'vectoring below the MVA' that we can discontinue lateral separation AFTER the aircraft has reported or is observed at an altitude above the obstruction. C182 was turned right at the obstructions when he was below 500 FT. What led to this event and why it happened? The answer to that question is the reason why I am writing this report. There has been a disagreement on who is responsible for separating a ZZZ departure from obstructions. Is it the pilot or the Controller? Over the years; when I attempted to address this issue with the Management team; this is what I have been told: 1.)'Do what's best for your career.' 2.)'We have a waiver from FSDO that allows us to do that.' A FLM really did say that. 3.) 'We have a 'diverse vectoring area' that allows that. Of course I asked to see the LOA; LOP; Directive; or where ever it is documented and he could not find it. 4.)'It is the pilot's responsibility to miss the antenna' 5.)' It is just a technicality; why do you care?' 6.)'The chances of hitting one of those antenna is almost zero; 'The Management team; some past and some present; really don't know the rules or don't care. I have seen and REPORTED several aircraft that literally flew between the antennas. Sooner or later someone is going to hit one of those antennas if we don't get this straightened out. My recommendation is simple. DON'T TURN THE AIRCRAFT UNTIL THEY ARE ABOVE THE OBSTRUCTIONS!




Synopsis: Controller voiced concern regarding currently utilized departure techniques with regard to MVA; diverse vectoring area and obstacle clearances; the reporter noting the confusion needs to be clarified.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: About 30 minutes prior to scheduled push; I noticed a ramp crew outside pointing at the power cord and giving inquiring thumbs up. Since he did not perform the 'disconnect ground power' signal; the APU was running and bussed up; and it was so early before push; I thought he was asking if the power was good. I gave a thumbs-up and connected the ground power. About 15-20 seconds later; the Ramp Agent pulled the ground power. The APU was still running so transitioning back to APU Gen was instantaneous. About 15 minutes later; I was in the restroom and heard some insistent knocking on the aircraft. I could hear the Captain move from the galley area to the cockpit. Apparently; the ground crew had pulled the chocks and the aircraft rolled three to four feet backwards before a Ramp Agent could jump on the tug and stop it. Fortunately; no damage was done no injuries occurred but the forward service entry was partially blocked. Since the door could not be closed; the aircraft had to be towed forward to allow door closure. I am not sure when the chocks got pulled but suspect it may have happened when the power was pulled since the Ramp Agent was way out of sequence timing wise and used a completely non-standard signal when he pulled the power. We were very lucky no damage or injuries occurred. Passengers actually didn't even notice since the roll was very gentle.Have Ground Crews use standard signals for disconnecting power and pulling the chocks if not in voice communication with the cockpit. Brief the Ramp Agents on the importance of knowing the parking brake is on prior to pulling the chocks. Chock the tug and don't remove the chocks until the tug is running.




Synopsis: A B737 First Officer reported that ground personnel prematurely removed ground power and chocks prior to pushback.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Tower, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Z; was orbiting [nearby] for a practice parachute jump. There was not a TFR in effect for this operation. The schedule I had showed that the jump would happen from 5;500. Aircraft Y; was on final to 27R. Aircraft X had called me 10 south of the airport for Class Bravo transition; north of the 27R final approach course and the [area of orbit]. When Aircraft X was about 3 miles south of Aircraft Y; I issued traffic. Aircraft X replied that he was looking. I asked Aircraft X if he could turn 15 degrees right; as this would point him at Aircraft Y's tail. He replied that he could. I issued the instruction; and then updated the traffic call to Aircraft X. Aircraft X reported the traffic in sight and that he could maintain visual separation. I told Aircraft X to maintain visual separation from and pass behind Aircraft Y. All of these calls where within about one minute. The 15 degree turn/passing behind Aircraft Y; put Aircraft X as close to going over top of the [orbit area] as he could have been without trying. During this time; I noticed that Aircraft Z was still at 4;500. As Aircraft X was passing the [orbit area]; another controller said that he could see the jumpers coming down. Aircraft Z was still at 4;500; and I was given no notice that jumpers where away; or that they would be jumping from any altitude other than 5;500. The only plan effected to separate traffic from the jump zone; was to have all PHL arrivals land 27R; and to have Aircraft Z remain north of I-95 (which runs between the [orbit area] and the 27R final). Aircraft Z notified the approach controller one pass prior to jumpers way. The approach controller did not notify the tower. While I was expecting to receive notification; the approach controller thought that the TRACON supervisor would notify the tower supervisor. This did not happen. There were not any pre-planned notification procedures.




Synopsis: PHL Local Controller reported a loss of separation when a helicopter passed under an aircraft transporting skydivers. The Controller had not been advised that the jumpers had exited the aircraft. Reporter noted a lack of communication between TRACON and Tower supervisors.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Other CFII
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were coming back to ZZZ (our base) from ZZZ1. We were assigned ZZZZZ Arrival. Shortly after crossing the shoreline; Tower told us to maneuver toward a landmark to follow the traffic. After we made our turn; Tower asked us to if we have the light transport traffic in sight; my student pointed out a traffic to me and I radioed the tower that I had the traffic in sight. Tower then told us to cross behind the light transport traffic and cleared us for Runway XXL. After the traffic my student pointed out passed in front of us we angled toward the base leg. then I realized that traffic is not a light transport. Then I inspected the final for Runway XXR and saw a light transport about 250 ft. below; and about 500 ft. north east of us. I took over the airplane and maneuvered to avoid flying in front of the light transport. [The] maneuver was successful and we flew behind them. Shortly after the evasive maneuver Tower asked us again if we have the light transport traffic in sight; I told them 'We do have [light transport] in sight' We proceeded to land on Runway XXL.In retrospect; I shouldn't have told the tower we have the traffic in sight without positively identifying the light transport. A good radio transmission  would be 'we do have a traffic over X location please confirm that is our traffic.'




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a NMAC in the traffic pattern. The Instructor and student misidentified the aircraft they were to follow per ATC. The Instructor took control and maneuvered the aircraft into the correct traffic pattern flow.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: A11.TRACON, AK
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ANC
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During our descent through 10;000 feet into ANC after our arrival fix (GASTO) we received an unexpected runway change from 7R to Runway 33. While being vectored to a visual approach we were given a heading of 070; maintain 4;000 feet to intercept and track inbound on the 7R LOC. The clearance made no sense as we had already changed nav frequencies to our assigned runway. We changed back to the 7R LOC only to realize that it was not emitting a signal and did not identify audibly. While trying [to] query ATC we visually tracked inbound to Runway 7R until further clearance was given. During this time both pilots became distracted and we descended below our assigned altitude. Due to the visual conditions; the runway change and the bogus clearance I failed to back up the pilot flying and failed as the PM (Pilot Monitoring). No mention of the deviation was made by ATC. In an effort to comply with a confusing ATC clearance we became distracted from our primary flight duties of flying and monitoring.


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


Synopsis: A B737 crew reported while descending through 10;000 feet to ANC Runway 7R; ATC changed their Runway to 33. Confused; the crew began setting up for Runway 33 when ATC cleared them for a Runway 7R visual approach; [and to] track the localizer which they discovered out of service. By then seriously distracted; the crew descended below their assigned altitude.