elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot in command and the pilot flying of Aircraft X; a Falcon 7X on a flight to ZZZ assisted by FO (First Officer). We departed and flew uneventfully to ZZZ; landing at approximately [early evening].After landing on runway XX we taxied on runway XY to taxiway 1 and then made the right turn onto taxiway 2; staying on the centerline. I was expecting the ZZZ crash/fire/rescue trucks to be parked on either side of taxiway 2 to provide a water salute for my last [company] flight. The trucks were there; parked on either side of taxiway 2 pointing at one another. They were approximately 30 yards east of the entrance to taxiway 2 from the adjacent ramp. I estimate we were taxiing at about 5 knots as we approached the trucks. They initiated the water salute as the nose of the plane pulled abeam the trucks. I mentioned to [the FO] that it seemed tight and I braked a bit more. I also noticed the north-side truck; adjacent to the ramp; backing up as we approached. By now the water was streaming down the windshield and side cockpit windows. [The FO] was watching out his side window and said words to the effect of it looks good to me. Obviously I could not see out the right side of the aircraft but I thought we would clear the truck on the right or I would have stopped. I had watched the north-side truck back up and it appeared clear to me; as it obviously was.As we struck the truck the plane jolted momentarily to the right as the forces attempted to pivot the plane around the truck nose. It was very momentary and I obviously stopped the airplane. It was obvious to all of us what had happened. [The FO] confirmed the truck was backing up and I checked the synoptics to make sure there was no hydraulic or other system involvement. When we were satisfied that we were mechanically okay and clear of the truck; I taxied the rest of the way onto the ramp and discharged our passenger.I obviously should have either stopped the aircraft as we approached the trucks or asked for 2 marshalers.


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


Synopsis: Flight crew reported striking a fire/rescue vehicle while taxiing through a water salute.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C SJC
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X departed SJC on SJC2 Departure. After radar contact I noticed that the aircraft appeared to be in a turn earlier than what is depicted on the SID. It was turning inside of a previous SJC Departure already established southeast bound. I amended Aircraft X's altitude to maintain 4000; as the previous departure was already level at 5000; and turned it to heading 100 for divergence. Once deconflicted; I vectored it back to course. Yet again another San Jose departure does not fly the departure procedure correctly. This happens far too many times and causes a lot of controllers to work extremely hard to maintain separation standards. Separation is lost on many of these same instances if the departure controller is not scanning the critical area where the aircraft are supposed to turn. To make matters worse; SJC Tower will continue to launch departures regardless of what's going on unless the departure controller remembers (or has enough time) to cancel automatic release's. Again I recommend that SJC Tower ensure aircraft are de-conflicted prior to a frequency change. I feel that they should ensure the aircraft are in the appropriate turn prior to a communication transfer. Until something of this nature happens; pilots will continue to make errors to these sometimes confusing departure procedures. This event happened to be on a SJC2 departure; most of these events take place during the LOUPE4 Departure. Departures off Runway 30 at SJC are in a very critical area in NCT airspace. The airspace is extremely complex with SFO arrivals bearing over the top of SJC departures; and OAK arrivals turning final less than 10 miles from mid field SJC. The margin for error is minimal in Toga Sector.




Synopsis: NCT TRACON Controller reported an aircraft turned early on the SJC2 SID and into confliction with a previous departure.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ABQ.TRACON, NM
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked onto Departure and was instructed to 'Climb via SID'. Aircraft X two minutes later leveled at 100. When Approach asked why they leveled at 10;000 [feet]; they cited the previous clearance instructed them to maintain 10;000 [feet]. They were then told to climb via SID; top altitude FL200 and they then understood the instructions. Aircraft on clearance should be instructed to 'Climb via Sid' with no altitude restrictions; and if Approach needs an altitude restriction this will be given upon aircraft check in.-OR-All pilots need to be on the same page that when Departure clears an aircraft to 'Climb via SID' this deletes the clearance delivery restriction previously given.




Synopsis: ABQ TRACON Controller reported an aircraft leveling at a lower altitude then assigned and questioning why they stopped their climb.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cylinder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the climb out; instructor pilot and pilot under instruction felt a vibration that rapidly increased; coming from the engine. Instructor pilot noted the CHT (Cylinder Head Temperature) for cylinder number 6 was on the caution range. Instructor pilot took the controls and leveled off the airplane. After a few seconds CHT for cylinder number 6 went on red; and we started losing power. Instructor pilot contacted ATC to let them know the situation; and we requested a deviation back to [departure airport]. Landing and taxiing were completed without any further issue.




Synopsis: Cirrus SR20 instructor pilot reported experiencing engine vibrations and high cylinder temperature on one cylinder during a training flight. Shortly after; the engine began to lose power and they returned to their departue airport.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Challenger CL601
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On the evening of the incident we had just landed on Runway 6 at TEB. We were instructed to exit left on B; hold short of Runway 1 and stay with the Tower. I read the instructions back to the Tower and once again after to the Captain. The Captain stated the instructions back to me verbatim and as we were exiting the runway I began the after landing checklist. I felt the airplane come to a complete stop and I looked up to see that we were well short of runway one. As this happened we were instructed to cross runway one and stay with him on our taxi to the ramp. Right after this transmission he told us to call a number for a possible pilot deviation. The Captain called the number and they told him that we stopped on Runway 1 and did not hold short as instructed. He told them that we did and he was told that they would look into it. We immediately began looking over the runway diagram and saw that this is a hot spot for Teterboro airport and found it odd that there was no lighting for an approaching runway. The lighting there in general is very dim. I believe in a known hot spot area there should be better lighting for pilots to see this intersection.




Synopsis: The flight crew of a CL601 believed ATC incorrectly accused them of crossing Runway 1 after landing on Runway 6 and being cleared to exit at B; hold short of Runway 1. The reporter believes that; if they did cross; it was inadvertent and poor lighting and markings at the area; a designated hot spot; were contributing factors.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RDU
ATC / advisory: Tower RDU
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While on a visual approach to Runway 23R at RDU; myself and the Captain witnessed a drone hovering in close proximity to the final approach course. The event occurred on short final; approximately 400 feet AGL less than 1 mile to touch down. I noticed the object start at the 11 to 12 O'clock position and shift to our left and pass off the left side. We reported the sighting to ATC who advised other aircraft and notified in trail aircraft on final. No deviation or evasive action was required. Post flight walk around showed no signs of impact with the object. Flight landed without incident RDU Tower and Approach Control coordinated with local authorities.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported observing a UAV near their course while on short final.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After receiving Type 1 fluid at the deice pad; we taxied to runway 4L for departure. Upon reaching 500 feet and starting my turn to 060 heading on SID; we had an unscheduled feather. I immediately realized there was an engine abnormality by the noise change of the engine; and the rudder inputs. We performed the memory action items for a #2 engine failure below acceleration height; flew the engine failure departure procedure. While I flew the aircraft; the First Officer ran our Engine Failure checklist; and we requested vectors back around for the ILS to 4L. We informed the Flight Attendant of our issue and of our intentions; I spoke with the passengers; and we had Operations contact Dispatch. We landed the aircraft without further incident; and taxied back to our assigned gate. Without fully knowing why the event happened; I cannot make any suggestions at this time.


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


Synopsis: A DHC-8-200 right engine auto-feathered after takeoff. The Below Acceleration Height Checklist was completed and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Pilots let us know aircraft was not working properly and said there is a slight odor. Every once in a while; I could smell something different. But it was very noticeable when the flight deck door was open and during deplaning. Should not have let flight go with this problem. The flight should not have gone knowing there was an air problem.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reported being notified by pilots of a 'slight odor' due to an aircraft issue. Reporter stated the odor was very noticeable when flight deck door was opened during deplaning at destination.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA; TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While established on the SERFR 1 arrival Runway 28 transition into SFO; we were instructed by ATC to Descend via the SERFR 1 arrival except to cross EPICK at and maintain 12;000 feet. When we reprogrammed the FMS to change the EPICK crossing restriction to a hard 12;000 feet vice the published Between 15;000 feet and 10;000 feet; the VNAV disengaged/failed to capture and we did not meet the assigned crossing restriction at WWAVS (between FL190 [and] 15;000 feet). The FO (pilot flying) noticed the deviation; just prior to the WWAVS intersection; and leveled the aircraft at 13;500 feet. After passing the WWAVS intersection we complied with the remainder of the STAR and landed at SFO without further difficulties. ATC never mentioned the deviation or queried us as to why we missed the crossing restriction. A lot of thought and planning has gone into the designing of current day RNAV SIDs and STARs. Changing these procedures for no apparent reason; is setting crews up for failure.


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


Synopsis: When a Corporate Jet flight crew set an ATC amended hard crossing altitude into the FMS for EPICK on the SFO SERFR1 Arrival; VNAV disengaged and failed to capture the crossing restriction at WWAVS.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: King Air 100 A/B
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While setting up for a GPS approach; I got a visual on the Runway and told approach I was cancelling IFR and squawking VFR. I was outside of controlled airspace in VFR conditions. The controller refused to let me go VFR. Controller told me to get back on the IFR code and proceeded to vector me into IFR conditions. I've never been refused when cancelling IFR before? Then they asked to call about a possible pilot deviation. When I did I asked them why they wouldn't allow me to cancel my IFR flight. The controller hung up the phone on me!? The IFR cancellation was loud and clear.




Synopsis: BE10 pilot reported cancelling IFR with ATC in VFR conditions; outside controlled airspace.  ATC refused cancelation; with no explanation.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inbound to IAH at FL330; the Houston Center Controller issued a clearance to cross HAMMU at 10;000 ft and 280 KIAS. According to the FMS; the aircraft was about 13 minutes away from HAMMU when the clearance was given. The clearance was accepted; read back by the PM; verbalized by the PF and entered into the FMS and PFD and confirmed by both pilots. A descent was not initiated at this point. About 7 minutes away from HAMMU the Controller queried us about whether we were going to be able to comply with our clearance. The PM indicated that we probably could; the PF immediately initiated a descent at just below MMO/VMO with the speed brakes deployed and the thrust levers at idle. About 3 or 4 minutes from HAMMU the Controller queried us again and the PM indicated that we were doing our best. We were instructed to contact the next Controller and given a new frequency. We checked in with new Controller and crossed HAMMU at about 10;800 ft and 290 KIAS. In this case the sole cause of this deviation was the PF; me; not paying close enough attention to the task at hand. The PM and I were engaged in a conversation and I allowed myself to become distracted from my primary responsibility...flying the airplane. Normally when given a clearance like this; with a delayed initiation of the descent; I pull the tray out from the glareshield and articulate to the PM how many minutes it will be when the descent will be initiated and; sometimes; at what descent rate. In this case I did none of that and the result was an altitude and speed deviation. It could be articulated that the PM could have 'monitored' more closely; and that likely that is true; but ultimately it is my responsibility to do my job. If I had done that this would not have occurred.Suggestions: In the future; I will be more diligent in ensuring that I comply with the company's SOP; suggested best practices; as well as my own standards of conduct to ensure that this never happens again. There is no conversation that is that interesting that it can't be delayed until we are safely at the gate with the parking brake set. Lesson learned.




Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew missed a crossing restriction issued by ATC. First Officer; Pilot Flying; attributed the error to distraction caused by a conversation with the Captain.