elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Arriving in the local Las Vegas area; we were assigned a visual approach to Runway 19L; in night conditions. While this is a normal approach for this airport; more frequently we arrive using Runway 25L. About 25 miles from the airport; while being vectored westbound; we were given a descent to 5;200 FT. (Assigned to 5;200 FT.) Knowing there was terrain in the area; the EGPWS/Terrain was closely monitored; and at that time showed terrain at 4;100 FT. Approach asked if the airport was in sight. We soon began a visual approach; including the initial descent from 5;200 FT.  While monitoring terrain ahead in night flying conditions; as we passed over what was believed to be a safe altitude; we received a terrain warning; for what seemed to be quick; lasting only seconds. Though it was night; the peak that we passed over is marked with red obstacle lights; and was able to be seen. It seems our rate of descent should have been delayed for more significant clearance above terrain.ATC should consider delaying offering visual clearances at night; until terrain is clearly not at risk. Flight Manual Part II for this airport only point out terrain warnings for night approaches for Runway 01. Cautions for other runways should be included. Pilots should be more frequently reminded in training about approaches in terrain; night flying; and VFR separation from clouds. This report was submitted in hopes that other aircrews in this situation are better protected from terrain at night; in visual conditions. It is often very difficult to identify terrain in darkness.




Synopsis: A B757 First Officer was uncomfortable on the LAS Runway 19L night visual approach while at 5;200 FT because even with terrain and the airport were insight; the EGPWS momentarily activated.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I had to turn off all electronics; including taxi Light; landing light; anti-collision lights; navigation lights; ADS-B; transponder; and radios. Due to a discharging battery state. I was worried I was not going to have the power to bring down the gear. I continued on the flight at 5;000 feet to get to ZZZ1. I let Approach know by phone; as that was the only number I had easy access to in the air; and they let the Center know of the issue and my plan and location. I had 2 iPad's and a smartphone to stay on a new course and stay out of any controlled airspace and followed a route around the western side of the Class B airspace. Route was ZZZ to ZZZ1.Then after clearing the northwest side of the airspace; I went direct to ZZZ1. Once I got less than 10 miles away from ZZZ1 I turned on my electronic system to bring down the landing gear. The backup plan if the gear was not going to go down was to go to ZZZ2. I told them I was planning on calling them no later than XA:30 PM of my plan or if I was on the ground. I got on the ground safely in ZZZ1. Approach called; and I told them I was on the ground safely. The major worry I had was my NAV lights or anti-collision lights at night and the point of this report. I decided to continue the flight and land in ZZZ1 over any other airport because I knew that was the safest place for me to land at night with no lights or radios. I had people waiting; and they turned on the airport lights for me. At any other airport; I was worried it would have ended badly. The different idea was to turn around to ZZZ; but there was flight training with multiple airplanes in the pattern. There was no damage or any injury. I still had all primary flight instruments the whole flight.




Synopsis: C177 pilot flying into an uncontrolled airport reported they landed at night with no aircraft lights due to battery failure.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise we received a master caution and a flaps light on the CWP. We ran the QRH which directed us to select the flap setting that was indicated which was zero and turn on the [Terrain Awareness Warning System] override. We used the tables to calculate a corrected ref for a flaps zero landing and a corrected landing distance which was ref 138 and just under 5;000 FT. We determined that a landing at destination would be ok because the runway is 7;000 FT long. We relayed a message to Dispatch via Operations to ensure that we were ok to land and briefed a zero flap visual approach. Operations relayed a message back to us that Dispatch agreed and we were ok to land. We did not declare an emergency. We did not brief the passengers to brace. I briefed the Flight Attendant that we would be making an abnormal landing and we would be slightly faster than usual but there was no serious cause for alarm. I told her this was an abnormal situation; not an emergency. We landed without incident and taxied to the gate. Contract maintenance met us at the aircraft and determined that even though the flap indicator was indicating zero; we had some flaps down which is what triggered the caution. Maintenance trouble shot the problem and found a tripped circuit breaker. They reset the breaker; and checked the flaps for full range of travel and indication and checked that the CWP flaps light was out. It was a crew swap so I'm not exactly sure what the complete corrective action was but none the less the aircraft was signed off and made the return trip with another crew.




Synopsis: SF340 Captain experiences a master caution and a flaps light on the CWP at cruise altitude. The flaps indicate up and a no flap landing at destination is planned and successfully executed. Maintenance found that some flaps were out and that a circuit breaker had tripped. Resetting the circuit breaker returned the flaps to normal operation.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OSH.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 1
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E MKE
ATC / advisory: TRACON MKE
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tried to get IFR reservation to Oshkosh; but could not because they were all taken. I chose to get IFR reservation to C47; a nearby airport; with the plan to shoot an instrument approach to runway 18 at C47; then either plan A: land and wait for weather to turn VFR and continue from there to OSH VIA visual approach in OSH NOTAM (RIPON TO FISK; then direct OSH; or plan B: if I broke out visually on the approach to C47 then Fly visually to OSH VIA RIPON and FISK per NOTAM. On the descent on the approach; I did break out visually before reaching minimums; at about 1400 MSL. I then elected to fly at 1400 MSL to RIPON to try the visual approach. The problem was cloud bases were ragged and less than 100 feet above me; I had no cloud separation; barely keeping clear of clouds and barely 400-500 feet AGL. I rationalized this was OK because of the special circumstances of air adventure 2017 procedures at OSH. FORTUNATELY; everything worked out and conditions improved to VFR after I passed FISK inbound to OSH Traffic pattern. But I was taking a risk by scud running in such a narrow margin and declaring my own special VFR without ATC permission. I did have ADS-B out on board but that does not show all traffic. Worst case; I could have collided with another plane which was also scud running nearby; or hit a tower/wires. I should have landed at C47 and waited patiently for weather to get better between C47 and FISK before proceeding to OSH.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot reported operating below cloud minimum clearances enroute to OSH after breaking out from a nearby IFR approach.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
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: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the departure climb the First Officer indicated to me that the right engine oil quantity was decreasing at a moderate rate. After approximately two to three minutes the right oil quantity reached zero. We then received an ECAM Warning for 'ENG 2 OIL LOW PR (in red)'.  We followed SOP and performed the ECAM procedure; which directed us to shut down the right engine.  We [advised ATC]Center and requested a return to our departure airport. I notified Dispatch of our engine shutdown and our diversion. I performed a single engine approach. We landed without further incident. Oil leak in the right engine




Synopsis: A319 pilot reported an oil leak on departure caused them to shut down an engine and return for a landing.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Tower, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working a very busy local control position and dealing with a cumbersome and unsafe letter of agreement with the [company] ramp control is a hazard to flight safety. In this situation I was very busy adjusting the aircraft on final to achieve and maintain proper intersecting runway separation also known as preventing collisions between aircraft operating within the system. The primary purpose for the ATC. The traffic density was above average; and wind conditions made complexity elevated. As an additional contributing factor of workload a [small aircraft] departed Runway 35 VFR which could not be seen out the window or on RADAR.  During all of this Aircraft X was twice given taxi instructions in accordance with local directives. The aircraft was intentionally not given a frequency change (I have found that this is a good way to work around aircraft that choose to ignore ATC instructions and listen to ramp 'controllers' instead of air traffic controllers). Aircraft X did choose to ignore ATC instructions and held on the taxiway for an extended period of time despite being given clear taxi instructions once again. Aircraft X after blocking an exit point of the runway for an extended period of time did enter the ramp after communicating with the ramp 'controller'. This caused me to shift focus from separating aircraft on converging courses to deal with an aircraft that before the LOA was changed for efficiency would have never been an issue. This facility has placed efficiency ahead of safety. This LOA is unsafe. Listen to the controller work force who are either dissatisfied with it or choose to ignore it and have gone back to working the way we used to do things.




Synopsis: PHL Local Controller reported a new Letter of Agreement procedure creates an unsafe situation for aircraft taxiing to the ramp.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Departing BUR on Runway 15; we were assigned the heading of 210 degrees and an initial altitude clearance limit of 4000 ft. I believe it was just prior to 3000 ft that ATC asked us to expedite our climb to 4000 ft for traffic which was at 3000 ft. Shortly thereafter; with urgency and his voice; the Controller told us to turn immediately right to the heading of 340. The First Officer started to turn the aircraft while I was looking at TCAS. The intruder target was red and in close proximity to our aircraft. At this time; I thought it was necessary to intervene and increase the rate of turn and increase back pressure on the yoke to further increase our rate of climb; which I did. We were subsequently cleared to FL190 and on course; resuming our flight. Quite frankly; this event scared the hell out of me; and I would love to know how close we actually came. We never saw the intruder aircraft.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported an NMAC while departing BUR.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PDK.Tower, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small UAS (At or above 0.55 lbs and less than 55 lbs)
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Climb; Hovering (UAS); Landing; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other post-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I used Airmap to look up the address of inspection location but did not type in physical address. I referenced the town of Tucker which was in Class G airspace but the actual location of the flight was a mile and a half west in Class D (PDK). No prior authorization was requested. Flight was completed and I was made aware of the flight error by management and we discussed the importance of looking up physical location.




Synopsis: Part 107 UAS pilot learned after a flight they flew in controlled airspace without authorization.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: PFD
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were doing a ferry flight. The First Officer's (FO) side PFD CRT screen was completely blank and the MFD was acting up.  The selection buttons that are usually below the MFD were instead below the PFD.  It was also from time to time switching to a PFD without any prompts and the reversionary panel was not doing anything.  Therefore my MFD was useless so we dimmed it out to make it blank.  So now on the FO side my PFD and MFD were unusable.  We got a clearance of heading 040 to join up with the Victor Airway.  We were not yet in autopilot as we were still early in the climb.  I set us to a 040 heading and then was discussing with the Captain how to properly sequence the FMS.  We went ahead and deleted the waypoint to try to sequence it and then I armed the LNAV.  We had decided to delete the wrong waypoint and therefore flew through the Victor Airway.  When we got handed off to another controller he asked what we were assigned.  We told him 040 heading to intercept the victor airway.  He realized that we missed it and gave us new instructions to just maintain 040 heading and that he would vector us and then eventually gave us a direct. Threats: 1: FO PFD and MFD were unusable.2: High workload conditions on climb-out.Errors: 1: Improperly sequencing the FMS.Undesired Aircraft State:1: Lateral Deviation (because we missed intercepting the victor airway and maintained course.)I need to verify with the paperwork between which 2 waypoints the victor airway we are going to intercept is.  I also need to review how to properly sequence the FMS to intercept a Victor Airway.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 crew ferried an aircraft with the First Officer's PFD MEL'ed and failed to intercept a Victor airway after deleting the wrong waypoint.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being vectored on approach; ATC gave us a clearance to maintain 3;800 feet until established and then cleared the approach. The vector given placed us just inside OKAIN; approximately 11 miles. This already placed us high on a designed steep approach. Before the intercept; Approach requested us to maintain 170 KIAS until REEBO. I replied that the best we could give is 150 KIAS because we were flying a LOC approach. He queried our ability and replied that this is the first time that he had heard of this inability. He also stated that he might need to pull us out of the approach. A steep non-precision approach is a poor place to have these distractions placed on a Crew while shooting this approach near minimums. This type of approach is designed/briefed at a specific set of parameters regarding speed and descent. It was surprising to us as a crew that the Controller wasn't aware of these conditions especially given the field was IFR. We are only bringing this attention for safety reasons because we feel it placed an undue burden on a crew during a very challenging part of flight. Also; we were restricted to the LOC due to an MEL issue. With all the automation these days; controllers must still understand that crews may not always have that capability available.'




Synopsis: B-737 Captain reported a communications breakdown between flight crew and ATC which placed undue burden on flight crew while on a near minmums non-precision approach.