elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MMMX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft received multiple changes to clearance and ended up off the arrival due to ATC vectors.  Aircraft ended up left of approach corridor on the RNAV arrival; crew thought they were on course but ATC issued corrective vectors for arrival.  Aircraft was cleared direct to outer marker and executed approach without incident.  Landing and taxi in were uneventful.Language is a continuous threat in Mexican airspace.  Their command of English is virtually nonexistent and they regularly use Spanish in communication with aircraft.  In addition; they at times issue clearances that are not able to be followed and then are upset when the aircraft are unable to comply with these clearances.  This inability to follow clearances has everything to do with aircraft performance.  On numerous occasions I have brought these issues up to our company and every time I am told nothing can be done.  These communications come from our management personnel who never fly.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of ATC vectoring them off course and multiple changes to the clearance.  Pilot describes bad use of the English language in Mexican airspace.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Angle of Attack Vane
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the takeoff roll; just prior to rotation (within five to Ten Knots of Vr) we were still on the runway when I received about a two second Stick Shaker event. By the time I recognized what was happening we were at or above Vr so I concluded that the safest course of action was to continue the takeoff for several reasons.1.) When the event occurred we were still on the ground and any stall indication we would be receiving must therefore be erroneous; 2.) We were past V1 speed; 3.) Not least of all we were running out of runway. I feel confident that if I needed to stop the aircraft within the remaining amount of runway I could have; but was unnecessary under the circumstances. Once we were in the air (at about 300 feet AGL) we then got several EICAS messages. 1.) Stall Prot Fail; 2.) AOA Limit Fail; 3.) Windshear Fail; 4.) AT Fail (Auto Throttles). The aircraft was operating normally with the exception of the Auto Throttles; so after transferring the controls to the F/O; I referenced the QRH to determine the best course of action. Other than avoiding any uncoordinated flight the QRH did NOT mention landing at the nearest suitable airport so we continued on. We followed the checklists for descent and landing and added the required landing speed corrections and had an uneventful flight there after. We ACARSed Maintenance to give them a heads up.




Synopsis: EMB-170 Captain experiences a stick shaker during takeoff; after V1 prior to Vr and the takeoff is continued. Once airborne EICAS messages for Stall Prot Fail; AOA Limit Fail; Windshear Fail and AT Fail are annunciated. After referencing the QRH the flight continues to destination.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Fog; Icing; Turbulence; 2
Light: Night
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Departure correctly coded in FMS and displayed on MFD. Briefed departure procedure emphasizing distance (2.3 NM) and maximum altitude (2;000 FT) for noise abatement; planned climb speed (140 to 2;000 FT) and requirement for anti-ice on. Planned to hand fly the departure until established at 2;000 FT and heading 280. First flight with SIC. After takeoff he questioned flap retraction sequence and anti-ice ON timing; so I selected autopilot on; verified LNAV/VNAV MODES captured; and monitored his actions. On autopilot; climb rate decreased to VNAV command; resulting in the aircraft starting a turn to 280 HDG beyond 2.3 DME from TEB but prior to reaching 2;000 FT. This is standard for PROLINE4; but it was too late to correct things by the time I observed the error. A better way to have managed the automation would have been to select FLCH instead of VNAV so the airplane would have maintained an adequate rate of climb. On initial contact with Departure we were climbing through 1;850 FT and were advised we should be at 2;000 FT.




Synopsis: While departing TEB to the north on the TEB 8 departure; DA2000 Captain reports climbing slowly and reaching 2;000 FT after turning to 280 degree heading.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
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 SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were being vectored for arrival in SFO for 28L. We had leveled off at 4000 ft and were asked to call visual on RJ traffic that was at our 11 o'clock and descending to cross in front of us for RWY 28R. We had visual on the traffic and then were given a turn to intercept 28L ATC asked if we had the field in sight. We responded that we had a visual on the field and visual on the traffic. ATC then cleared us for the visual 28L and said to maintain 180 knots to the Bridge. We read back the clearance and put in 1800 ft in the altitude window. I clicked off the automation and started to descend and make a slow turn to intercept the runway centerline of 28L. Just as the descent was commenced we received a TCAS RA Descend command. I started the descent and complied with the RA. I looked out my right window and saw the RJ turning into us and descending so I kept the descent going and started a turn away. When the RA cleared we reestablished ourselves on the visual for 28L while keeping an eye on the RJ (Regional Jet); who was still crowding us on our approach. No communication was received from Tower of any potential conflict. Shortly after crossing the bridge we had another RA Descend command from the same RJ who was now over top of us and could not be seen. I complied with the RA and kept the speed up to try to get some separation horizontally as well until the RA cleared. Still no call from Tower and we landed uneventfully. I have to believe that the RJ never saw us and was lining up on the wrong runway. Or they were just very confused!


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported receiving an RA from a nearby regional jet on parallel approaches to SFO Runways 28L and 28R.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was doing traffic pattern with my student when [another aircraft] made a radio call saying that he was 6 miles east of the field going to enter left downwind for 09. However; that was the last call my student and I heard from him. We had been doing pattern work for the previous 45 minutes following a Cessna in the pattern. My student had made a radio call saying that we were turning left crosswind for 09. As he was about to make a call saying that we were turning downwind; I looked out the right window to make sure we were clear and that is when I saw [the other aircraft] banking to the right. I immediately took control and banked the plane hard to the left and pushed the nose forward to get some airspeed. [The other aircraft] didn't make a proper entry and also stayed close to us at about our 4 o'clock. That is when he got back on the radio asking if we saw him and I responded yes we did and that we had been following the Cessna. I climbed to about 1;000 feet MSL and informed him that we will extend downwind to let him land. I extended a few miles downwind and began turning base and then final while making the radio calls. However; when I said I was on final; [the other pilot] said that he thought that I was 'confused' and was on the upwind. I definitely wasn't as I was on final. What he meant by that; was he wasn't going to get off the runway; and that's exactly what he did. He landed and instead of taking the closest taxi way; he purposely stayed on the runway forcing us to do a go around. I understand that it is not set in stone of how to enter a traffic pattern at an uncontrolled field and that radio communication at one is not required however; I believe that [the other pilot] violated 91.13 careless or reckless operation. The pilot of [the other aircraft] almost caused a midair collision and created a potential hazard on the active runway. Also; there were two other planes in the pattern besides me. This sort of behavior was just unacceptable and dangerous.




Synopsis: A flight instructor and his student pilot experienced a near-mid-air-collision when another pilot entered the traffic pattern without proper radio usage.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Chain of Events:Advised by Tower upon approach that a runway inspection was being conducted; cleared to overfly the runway at 800 feet MSL; then make left pattern until runway inspection was completed. I descended to the 800 feet but; upon level off; was subsequently blinded by the sun (I was flying west and it was approaching evening). As a result; I was sun-blinded and didn't see the altimeter for a few moments -- when I could see it again it was unwinding toward 450 feet as I approached the runway. I immediately added power and pulled up to regain the assigned 800 feet I was to overfly the runway. No violation occurred as I did cross the threshold (and did overfly the runway) at the assigned 800 feet. Apparently the tower controller concurred; remaining cheerful; friendly; and very helpful in cutting short my pattern to expedite my arrival as the runway inspection was concluded (I was allowed to turn downwind; cleared to land; after only needing to overfly a few feet of the runway).Human Performance Considerations:I was sun-blinded upon level off; as the sun then appeared suddenly in my flight path after being shielded by the roof line in the descending approach. I had not yet trimmed the aircraft for level flight; so it seems the manual pullback on the yoke was relaxed without my awareness while being distracted/blinded by the sun. I was aware of the hazard and tried to look to the side for orientation while reaching to block the sun with the visor and my hand; whereupon I regained sight of the altimeter and corrected.What can be done to prevent recurrence:Remember to preemptively pull down visor in such an approach. (It is my habit to do so; but didn't this time because it didn't seem quite late enough to worry about it.) I'm sharing this to alert others to this potential problem.




Synopsis: Pilot reported sun in eyes interfered with seeing the altimeter; resulting in a descent towards the ground at low altitude.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on midfield downwind on left traffic for Runway XX with the Student Pilot at the controls; I; the Instructor; realize of a traffic coming from the west slightly higher than traffic pattern altitude descending and heading towards our airplane. I announce 'I have control' and I commence a pitch down to avoid otherwise an impact from the other airplane. The traffic never appeared on TCAD [Traffic Collision Avoidance Device] and I presumably did not have an operational transponder since the flight was not tracked by any software. After evasive action; the traffic joins the downwind very close to us while I am inquiring in frequency to attempt to communicate with that traffic. I established communication with the traffic and I arrange the sequence for the arrival to the runway ahead of that traffic.




Synopsis: SR20 flight instructor reported an NMAC while operating in the pattern at a non-towered airport.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E L30
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; 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 New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on the SUNST Arrival and inside of FUZZY; we were attempting to slow to the 250 KTS crossing restriction; we were currently at 267 KTS. Descending to the next waypoint; we got high on the profile due to moderate turbulence and ground heating and the aircraft did not want to come down. We reached a speed of 274 KTS trying to get down as to make the next crossing restriction. IPUMY at 11;000 FT and 230 KTS; we were able to make the altitude; however; the speed was still at 250 and decreasing.  ATC asked us to slow further to 210 KTS and we did quickly. The remainder of the flight was normal.  During times like this; I believe that slowing out from the FUZZY to 250 KTS would have given us some room to deal with the turbulence.




Synopsis: An air carrier aircraft on the LAS SUNST RNAV Arrival missed the IPUMY 230 KT speed restriction as the pilot attempted to slow the aircraft in turbulent; ground heated air.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: DC-10 30
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During Pre-Flight/Cargo onload; Got APU auto shutdown. Within 15-20 seconds; Maintenance Personnel rushed into cockpit and stated 'APU Fire; Pull the Fire Handle and Discharge agent'. Captain complied immediately with request. Maintenance personnel professional throughout entire evolution.


Second narrative: [Narrrative 2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: During preflight; a DC10 APU auto shutdown and shortly thereafter Maintenance personnel entered the flight station declaring the APU was on fire; so both fire bottles where discharged.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Engine quit at approximately 200 AGL on final approach. Hard landing on grass a few feet before threshold of runway. Aircraft rolled onto runway. Speculation that the problem occurred due to right fuel tank being used instead of switching to both tanks prior to entering the traffic pattern. Possible carburetor ice; carburetor heat does not function robustly; on run up; addition of carb heat only drops rpm by 30-40 rpm. Other possibility is that the fuel outlet on the right tank unported and air was drawn into the line.

Callback: The reporter indicated that the installed engine is a Lycoming O-320. The cause was not confirmed; however five gallons of fuel was found to be present in the right fuel tank. Also; the tank feeds from the forward and aft sides of the tank. Since the rpm drop is very low during the run-up test of the carb heat; the reporter suspects that carburetor ice may have been present.



Synopsis: The pilot of an amateur built experimental aircraft reported a loss of engine power on final approach that led to landing just short of the runway. Carburetor ice may have existed and the carb heat control may be inadequate.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CMH.TRACON, OH
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C DAY
ATC / advisory: TRACON CMH
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were descending into DAY. The weather in the area was heavy and extreme precipitation was displayed on radar. Aircraft are both requesting detailed information about weather and information on DAY. The DAY weather and RVR were rapidly changing due to thunderstorms in the area. Numerous times over the course of the descent into Dayton; the Dayton METAR; wind; altimeter; RVR; and RBDT (Windshear Ribbon Display) feeds were lost on the NIDS (NAS Information Display System) and relevant information was not able to be passed onto the pilots in a timely manner. This issue has been reported and noted for months and still is creating safety issues for us in the most extreme weather. The NIDS needs to be fixed. Attached is a picture from another instance of the NIDS with big yellow Xs over the relevant information and just blank information for the RVR.




Synopsis: CMH TRACON Controller reported their NIDS (NAS Information Display System) routinely fails to depict current adverse weather conditions.