elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Contributing factors: Manuals; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I'm writing this report because we have guidance in Chapter 15 of the AOM (Aircraft Operating Manual) regarding windshear that is impossible to follow. In a nutshell; we are given black/white guidance in a very gray area. We are told in para 15.5.1; 'Stay clear of thunderstorm cells; heavy precipitation; and areas of known windshear.' Para 15.5.2 says; 'Do not take off if known windshear exists;' and para 15.5.5 says; 'Do not continue the approach if known windshear exists.' But what exactly is 'known' windshear? It is never defined. I have conversed with several of our company experts over the past few months. In all of my discussions with flight standards; flight operations procedures; and various check airmen no one has been able to define 'known' windshear. One subject matter expert told me that an ATC windshear alert; for example; is 'known' windshear; while another told me it was only an advisory. Which is it? All of the company experts I've spoken with admit 'known' windshear is extremely difficult; if not impossible; to define...yet; we're told we must avoid it. AC 00-54 Pilot Windshear Guide; 2.4.2 states; 'The importance of avoiding severe windshear and microbursts cannot be over-emphasized.' Agreed. It goes on to say that 'Unfortunately; there are no universal quantitative windshear avoidance criteria that provide unambiguous go/no-go decision guidelines.' It provides a Table 1 that gives probability of encountering windshear guidelines; but it also admits the information is a 'subjective evaluation of various observational clues to aid in making real time avoidance decisions.'So; there seems to be a wide and varied interpretation within the pilot group; to include our subject matter experts; over what constitutes 'known' windshear. Even the FAA's evaluation criteria for making a go/no-go decision is subjective. It's for these reasons; the AOM should be changed to either define what company means by 'known' windshear; and give examples for clarity; or rewrite the paragraphs cited above to allow for better risk management decision-making. Providing black/white (objective) guidance in a gray (subjective) environment creates confusion; is ambiguous; and can be detrimental to safety when there is not agreement within the pilot group as to what exactly constitutes 'known' windshear.




Synopsis: Reporter describes ambiguous guidance in company manuals with regard to avoiding known windshear.
Date: 201501
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A D10
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were filed into DFW via the BRDJE1 RNAV arrival. Approaching SEEVR with the BRDJE1 arrival in the FMGC; Fort Worth Approach told us were cleared to SEEVR; descend via the SEEVR arrival.  We checked the STAR; and were somewhat confused over the clearance; because the title page of 60-2B looks like this:BRDJE ONE RNAV ARRIVAL (SEEVR.BRDJE1) Note how it says (SEEVR) in parentheses. We thought we had understood the clearance; and were descending to cross SEEVR at FL200-230 as published. What the controller meant was for us to go to SEEVR; and join the SEEVR ONE RNAV ARRIVAL [Jeppesen title page 60-2Q]. The controller told us we were looking high at SEEVR. That got our attention; and we finally figured out that we were heading to the same fix [SEEVR]; but cleared for a different arrival; with a different crossing restriction [of between] 13000-16000. Seeing that we would be high at SEEVR; the controller gave us a 270 heading and a clearance to descend to 6000; then cleared us direct to INWOD; which is a fix on the approach to runway 17L.The annotation on page 60-2B certainly confused us. Getting a clearance for a different [STAR] close into a duplicate arrival fix certainly confused and time-compressed us as well. We should have been more proactive in resolving the ambiguity.


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


Synopsis: Although they were originally cleared 'as filed' and; thus; via the BRDJE RNAV STAR to DFW the flight crew of an A320 was cleared '...direct to SEEVR; descend via' the SEEVR arrival. Aware that SEEVR was a fix on their filed route AND on the BRDJE STAR they mistakenly assumed the FMGC was properly programmed and planned to cross SEEVR between FL230 and FL200. As they approached SEEVR ATC advised they looked to be too high and; only then; did they realize that--although sub-titled (SEEVR.BRDJE1)--their latest clearance was for the SEEVR RNAV STAR--sub-titled (SEEVR.SEEVR1)--and they were to cross SEEVR between 16000 FT and 13000 FT.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were in clear air above our altitude of FL410. we encountered unexpected continuous moderate turbulence and were unable to maintain altitude. We rapidly lost 1;000 feet of altitude.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported temporarily losing altitude control due to continuous moderate turbulence.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Helicopter
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: VFR helicopter inbound to from northwest at 1;500 FT. Unknown target appeared off his left side approximately same altitude. I called traffic who took evasive action and descended immediately to about 1;200 FT.




Synopsis: Local Controller described a conflict event between a VFR helicopter arrival and an unknown target suddenly appearing to the side of the helicopter.
Date: 201911
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Flow Indication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X on [date] left fuel bypass light illuminated. On [date] right fuel bypass light illuminated. Fuel filter changed both times. I wrote AML entry requiring an inspection of the fuel filter assemblies; concerned about fuel contamination. Maintenance Control and engineering were not very concerned but [representative] in Maintenance Control assured me they would at least check the fuel sumps. We were given another aircraft. The sign off indicated that Maintenance Control and engineering did not believe an inspection was required. No corrective action was taken and the plane was signed off and flew. I hereby recommend this aircraft be immediately grounded and the entire fuel system be inspected for contamination and if not aircraft derived; an immediate investigation as to where the contamination came from. This is a serious safety of flight issue that is being callously disregarded. I reiterate that the chance of this happening to 2 engines on the same aircraft in 4 days is highly unlikely without some sort of unverified fuel contamination. I have almost 25;000 hours and have never had this light even once. I am calling the [reporting] hot-line to emphasize this aircraft needs to be grounded today.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that a fuel filter problem resulted in an aircraft refusal.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MAF.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C MAF
ATC / advisory: CTAF MAF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After advising the Controller of airport in sight and cancelling IFR flight plan; Controller requested to squawk 1200 VFR code. We made a visual approach and landing to what we thought was ODO airport. It was not until we had safely landed without any incident to anyone; that we realized that we had landed at MAF instead of ODO. At the time of our landing Midland Airport Tower was closed. The flight was a 3:30 hour flight. We had left our hotel at XA00 local time for a XD00 departure however; the passengers showed up 2 hours late. It is my belief that fatigue was a contributing factor; as well as; accepting a visual in a non-familiar airport at night. Both airports have similar runway alignment and are within a close proximity to each other (ODO Rwy 34 and Rwy 29) (MAF Rwy 34 and Rwy 28). In the future when landing in a non-familiar airport day or night; I will not take a visual approach; instead; I will remain on instruments until positive identification of correct airport has been made or I will allow the controller to vector me to final.


Second narrative: On roll out found that the taxiways did not match our airport diagram and found we have landed at the wrong airport MAF! Both airports have similar runway alignment and are about 9 nm apart! Class C & D were not violated due to service hours of operation. Lesson well learned.


Synopsis: CE500 Flight Crew on an IFR flight to ODO; late at night; reports canceling IFR and accepting a visual approach. After landing they discover they have landed at MAF.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing we were cleared to taxi off on [another runway]. As we were taxiing and power was at idle the Low Volts and Low Pressure annunciators popped up. Immediately; the RPM began to decrease from normal idle at 700 RPM to 300; and then to 0. [I] advised Tower that we needed to restart on the runway; they asked if we were clear; I said yes; but then realized we had not yet cleared the hold short line. There was some confusion at first but we clarified with Tower and they sent the other traffic in the pattern on a go around. We were then able to restart the engine and taxi off clear of both runways. In the end everyone did what was required to make it a safe and uneventful situation. We are working with the maintenance shop to prevent this [from] happening again; but other than communicating more clearly with Tower there was nothing that could have been done differently.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported they were unable to clear the runway as planned when the engine quit after landing.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ICT.TRACON, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ICT
ATC / advisory: CTAF AAO; TRACON ICT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the descent into AAO; we received an RA. Both myself and the PF (Pilot Flying) visually spotted the traffic but was too late to request clearance to turn from ATC and we were never informed of the traffic. As we were receiving the RA instructions; ATC finally told us about the traffic and we started the RA response of climbing. Since the traffic was visually spotted as well; we start a climbing right turn and informed ATC we were doing so. Because of this RA; myself and the PF got behind the airplane; and weren't able to properly brief the remaining flight into AAO; which has multiple airspaces. We were cleared for the visual approach and cleared off approach freq. We initiated the descent from 3;000 feet later than normal to get below the Class C shelf on the downwind near AAO. I believe we were able to get below the shelf before the airspace. Next issue is the airspace around BEC. The winds were out of the North so we needed to land on 36 at AAO. BEC airspace is about 1 mile south of AAO. Again; I believe we turned base before the airspace and was able to stay out.Because of the RA near the airport; myself and the PF were a little on edge and weren't as briefed as we normally are. I believe the contributing factor to any problems with this flight was due to us being shaken up by the near miss resulting in an RA. While I believe we avoided all airspace; we were a lot closer to busting than I would prefer. Also that airspace around Wichita is super complex.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an airborne conflict and a possible BEC airspace incursion during descent to AAO airport.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Autofeather System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had to reject a takeoff due to the auto-feather not arming. This aircraft has for the past month had a rejected takeoff and/or a failed auto-feather test on an almost daily basis. Yet this aircraft keeps getting signed off for revenue service. This is solely a management/maintenance issue.




Synopsis: Dash 8 Captain reported rejecting the takeoff due to the propeller autofeather failing to arm.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LVN.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on downwind to runway 30 at LVN at 1800 ft MSL; an unannounced aircraft flew 100 ft over the top of us in the opposite direction.  When queried over the radio as to what the aircraft was doing; he said he was setting up to enter a downwind for 30.  I suggested that he enter the pattern from further out at a 45 degree angle; rather than on top of downwind.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported a NMAC with opposite direction aircraft in the pattern at LVN airport.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had just picked up the aircraft at dusk from having an annual from a nearby airport. I had not flown this particular aircraft at night previously. Once I took off it became dark enroute 5 minutes approximately into the flight. I attempted to turn on the cockpit lights; they would not work; and none of the radios would function either. In summary; I just took off in an unfamiliar aircraft and inadvertently experienced a partial electrical system failure. At that point I could not see my aeronautical charts; compass; or radios and did not have a GPS in that aircraft. I flew towards the city lights of ZZZ and landed with no radio communications at ZZZ airport. I was instructed to communicate with the Tower; which I did immediately upon landing without incident despite there being air traffic using the airport. I sincerely hope others may benefit from my experience.




Synopsis: A C152 pilot reported a partial electrical failure in night conditions and landed at a nearby towered airport without contacting the Tower.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CBF.Airport, NE
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C OMA
ATC / advisory: TRACON R90
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A Navajo departed CBF northbound; opposite direction to a VFR Cherokee being vectored for sequencing to OMA. The Navajo climbed into the Class C airspace and became a collision hazard for the Cherokee. The Cherokee was issued traffic and got the Navajo in sight just prior to the CA going off. The Navajo called to pick up his IFR at which point he was climbing out of 039 and still inside Class C airspace. I informed him of the dimensions of the airspace. The pilot said he didn't fly into CBF very often and was sorry. CBF is a very busy GA airport with a growing pilot education program. It is only about 7 miles from OMA which at times can be very busy. Knowledge of aircraft planning to depart would allow controllers to plan and control accordingly. To this end a 'Remote Control Communications Equipment' (RCO) on the airport would allow timely IFR clearances and cancellations.




Synopsis: R90 Controller described a Class C infraction/conflict when VFR traffic departing CBF awaiting an IFR clearance climbed into Class C and caused the event; the reporter suggested an RCO be installed at CBF for improved ATC planning.