elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast)
Component problem: Failed
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: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: During descent the aircraft experienced a loss of both ADS-B receiving 1 & 2 and a temporary Terrain display to standby on our NAV display. Loss was accompanied by a Class 2 message alerts which we began to run. Since the message alert requires determining the state of the transponder; I queried the ATC Controller as to the status of our transponder. He stated 'Everything is fine; 5G interference in the vicinity of DEN was reported'. We completed the approach.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported loss of ADS-B systems during approach to DEN airport.  Reportedly; ATC advised them 5G interference had been reported in the area.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The ground elevation is 6500' so I believe that was why it was confused with the FAF altitude.After being cleared RNAV XX in ZZZ at night we dialed 6500' for the FAF when it is published at 8500'. We received a Ground Proximity warning and complied by pulling up/leveling off and returning to 8500' after realizing the mistake.The LR EGPWS doesn't display obstacles clearance altitudes similar to the XR and shouldn't be dispatched to mountains based airports.The Lido brightness is too dark and flashes when adjusting at night leading to more errors at quick glances.




Synopsis: ERJ-145LR Captain reported EGPWS warning on approach due to setting airport field elevation as FAF altitude.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MYF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D MYF
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I have flown into MYF several times on an Instrument Approach; ILS 28R. Every time; I am given headings and vectors to final. I have asked for the full approach sometimes; but usually given vectors. The issue is that the altitudes and heading make it very difficult to fly a controlled and standard approach. This last approach I was given a heading to the final approach course at a higher altitude; then turned right and left and then back to final and then a steep descent to be able to get back on the right altitudes for the approach. This has happened about 5 times and usually the same sequence. I am kept high; then a step descent; various headings and then cleared for the approach at the last few minutes. It makes it very difficult to manage speed and altitude. Also; when in instrument conditions it provides an opportunity to become spatially disoriented with the turns and the assigned descent profile. I believe it would be MUCH safer to be given the full approach and follow the listed altitudes. I can tell there is a lot of traffic and a lot of training going on in the area; 2 parallel runways at MYF also present a challenge for controllers; but we should find a way to make the instrument approach be according to the plate. I believe this will make it safer for us all. I respect the Approach controllers and they are dealing with all the traffic the best they can. It just makes the Approach more difficult to fly correctly. If the approach is not workable; perhaps it should be revised.




Synopsis: Private Pilot reports on non-standard Air Traffic Control procedure at MYF.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
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
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After rotation with the positive rate gear up call the gear handle was raised and we received the ECIAS message Gear Disagree. We continued with the departure and I advised the IRO (International Relief Officer) to read the QRH procedure. We advised ATC we had a Gear problem and advised them of our situation. I contacted Flight Control and with Maintenance; Dispatch; and a SME (Subject Matter Expert) we discussed the problem and determined that the best course of action was return to [the airport]. Dispatch sent an amended release and we dumped fuel for the return. On the STAR we received an EICAS Fuel Imbalance 1 and 4 followed by EICAS Fuel Imbalance 2 and 3. All attempts using the QRH Procedures proved unsuccessful. Fuel imbalance continued to deteriorate. Fuel was draining out of Tank 1 rapidly. We then ran the fuel leak checklist. We determined that the fuel was not leaking externally but going into tank Number 2. The fuel would not stop draining from tank Number 1 into tank Number 2. We looked for further guidance in the QRH but could not find any. Using system knowledge we chose to open the cross feed and feed engine Number 1 from tank 2 and turn off the pumps on engine Number 1. The fuel continued to leave tank 1 and go into tank 2. Upon landing the difference between tank 1 and 4 was 10;000 pounds. The fuel imbalance 2-3 was brought back into tolerance by using tank 2 to feed 1;2; and 3 engines. When tank 1 continued to drain uncommanded we declared PAN PAN PAN at which time ATC gave us expedited handling. Landing was uneventful.


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


Synopsis: The flight crew of a B747 reported they received an EICAS message 'Gear Disagree' and also had an un-commanded fuel transfer.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a pleasure flight and intended to do a landing at ZZZ; where I have landed many times before. The wind was light [at] 220; and my intent was to land on Runway 16. After announcing my intent at 8 NM to the NW; two other planes announced to the east for landing on 16. I did look at the airport diagram; but had the clipboard upside down. I continued the approach; calling out downwind; etc for 16 when in reality I was approaching and landing on 34. I remember holding some R aileron for an anticipated R crosswind and being surprised that it was from the L. After landing I stopped on the taxiway facing S and wondered why I never saw the 2nd plane land; but it still didn't click. So I went to the end of 34; announced I was departing 16; and uneventfully took off as the 3rd plane was entering the downwind for 16. Looking to the L I never saw him; because of course he was behind me to the R. It was only when I leveled off that I realized what I had done and how lucky 3 pilots had been. Before this; I thought this was something that could only happen to a complete idiot; but it happened to me at an airport I thought I was familiar with. I had the airport diagram out but was holding the clipboard upside down. I think I did look at the heading at some point; which was of course the reciprocal and was 160. I was completely turned around without any reason to be. I have now decided that 'confirm course' should be done immediately after turning final.




Synopsis: GA pilot reports becoming confused approaching his destination with intentions to land on Runway 16 but instead entering the downwind and landing on Runway 34. The error is not discovered until after the ensuing takeoff.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Gulfstream III (G1159A)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were flying at FL430 when the Flight Attendant notified crew that there was a flood in the lavatory. Captain went back to investigate while First Officer flew aircraft. Owner went up to flight deck and hit his head on emergency electrical gang bar in cockpit. All electrical power was lost and cabin began depressurization. Captain returned to flight deck and tried to reset electrical power and began emergency descent. We could not notify [Center] of our descent because our radios were inoperative due to electrical power unable to restore. Passengers and flight crew all donned O2 masks except owner; who passed out due to hypoxia. Captain was finally able to restore electrical power at 16;000 FT. First Officer was now able to contact...Center and advise of the situation. We were able to then land. In the future no one except flight crew is allowed to enter flight deck during flight; not even aircraft owner. One good thing that happened was that both pilots had iPads. We were able to still navigate even though aircraft lost electrical power. The IRs and navigation boxes were not able to power up for the rest of the short flight.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information].


Synopsis: At FL430; owner of a GIII hit his head on an electrical gang bar in the cockpit causing loss of electrical power and cabin decompression. Electrical power restored at 16;000 FT and aircraft landed without further incident.
Date: 202008
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had a DH at the beginning of our day that was an hour and fifteen minutes late and then an aircraft swap after that. The inbound crew stayed and boarded our passenger; so the plane was full when we arrived. We were rushed to make announcements and pushback. I got distracted by the rush and all the new COVID and mask PA's and I said the old safety demo PA.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that an old version of the safety demo was presented due to being rushed.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Throp was east bound at 5;500 FT VFR 20 southwest; called Approach for RADAR flight following and priority handling into our airport due to low/intermittent oil pressure. RADAR Controller on duty provided expedited service to the airport. I passed all pertinent info to Local Control and suggested they roll the fire trucks. The Controller on Local failed to follow proper procedure and sounded the emergency siren; but never picked up the crash phone to pass the emergency information to the Fire Department. The response vehicles had to come up on Ground frequency and ask for information. This Controller has a history of not following procedure and providing poor/ineffective service. Numerous controllers have complained about this Controller and Management is either scared to do anything about his\her or just not interested in fixing the problem. This Controller is CIC qualified. This Controller can't even follow proper procedures for emergencies. This is a severe safety issue and something needs to be done.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller voiced concern regarding the actions taken by the Tower CIC when emergency information was relayed to the Tower.  The reporter questioned the CIC's capability.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While descending on the DRLLR5 into IAH; I asked the Captain a question regarding the flight and we began to converse about the topic. I continued to monitor the descent and we were on speed and on altitude all the way through MPORT. The Captain had the bottom altitude of MPORT (16;000 ft.) in the altitude selector and once past MPORT it was not changed to the bottom altitude of DRLLR (13;000 ft.). Since the altitude selector was still at 16;000 ft.; it looked as if we would be fine with the restriction at DRLLR according to the vertical guidance. 5 miles from DRLLR I noticed we were actually high and told the Captain we needed to increase the vertical descent. He increased the vertical descent while maintaining the speed restriction but we passed DRLLR 400-500 feet above the restriction. The flight continued normally and we continued on the arrival into the visual on 26R. This event was caused by a discussion about the flight leading to a monitoring breakdown. As Pilot Monitoring; I lost focus of the descent path and did not realize the bottom altitude of DRLLR was not set. By the time I realized and queried the Captain to increase the descent rate it was too late. I should have waited to ask a question until we were on the ground considering we were already on the arrival. This would have allowed me to monitor the descent rate more accurately and avoid being high at DRLLR. I also probably would have caught the altitude still being set to MPORT.




Synopsis: First Officer reported missing a crossing altitude on the DRLLR FIVE Arrival into IAH.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Off Duty
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As a commuter heading back to my base; I was assigned a jump seat (inboard aft right). Proceeding to the aft of aircraft to take my seat; only the C Flight Attendant was present in the aft galley and was heading to the front to perform a safety demo. I was presently the only one in the aft galley and I double checked the galley to make sure that all latches; doors and coffee pots etc. were properly engaged and secured as the flight crew was performing their safety demo. I walked over to both aft doors R2 then to L2 as a double safety precaution to make sure that both doors and straps were secured and armed and noticed that the R2 was armed and that the L2 was 'unarmed' during taxing out. My eyes nearly popped out of my head in seeing this and I immediately secured and armed the L2 door! When C Flight Attendant and B Flight Attendant returned to the aft aircraft I immediately told both of them of the incident and that the L2 was not secured and I secured and armed it.




Synopsis: B737-900 Flight Attendant; jump seating to work; notices the 2L door is not armed during taxi out and arms it.
Date: 201409
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Logbook(s)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Picked up assigned aircraft from Company's Maintenance Vendor.  We found numerous maintenance discrepancies on the aircraft previously; the reason for the aircraft's return to Maintenance status.Two discrepancies found during the second pre-flight: A.  One of the Maintenance Log forms was missing from the aircraft's log-book.  It was a fixed discrepancy for a suspected; turned out to be an actual; oil leak on the left engine.  I would not have known said Maintenance Log form was missing if I wasn't the one to write up said discrepancy.  Yet another sign to the great deficiencies the Company's aircraft logbook system has; and; the issues the Company has with quality control.Furthermore; the aforementioned missing Maintenance Log form was the one and only form with the maintenance release for this event in section 4 of the Maintenance Log.  The Inspector that brought out the form mentioned said fact.  I am not able to find a reference in the FOM in which the PIC is responsible to ensure a maintenance release is found for each maintenance event.  The FOM states that section 4 of the Maintenance Log is only for Maintenance use.  Does that mean the PIC is not responsible to ensure at least one maintenance release has been signed off for each maintenance event?B.  I previously wrote up two exterior APU cover fasteners to be either of the wrong type; too long; or; not properly fastened.  The corrective action stated that the vendor found the Company used a total of 4 wrong fasteners for said cover and the 4 were replaced with the correct ones.  My first question:  What are the consequences of using the wrong parts for the aircraft?  How and why does it happen that wrong parts are used for the aircraft.Secondly; upon the pre-flight inspection I found one of the replaced fasteners not to be fastened.  Yet another example of the Company's lack of Maintenance quality control.




Synopsis: A CE-560XLS pilot discovered a missing maintenance logbook page on which he personally had entered an oil leak discrepancy and separately an APU access panel with incorrect fasteners which was cleared but later found with one incorrectly secured.