elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Captain of Aircraft X; a scheduled public charter operated under FAR Part 135; and an Embraer EMB-135.  We had flown 3 flight legs this day and we were departing on our 4th leg of the day without any re-set or shutdown of the aircraft avionics.During our climbout on the SID while passing through approx. 4;000 feet; TRACON asked us; '[Aircraft X]; where are you going?'  We advised them that we are on the SID and they advised us that we were approximately a mile west of our intended course.  We cross checked both navigation displays and noticed a very significant position error between the left and right navigation systems.  The left and right navigation displays were approximately 6 miles different from each other.We advised ATC we were dealing with a navigation issue and we obtained radar vectors while we determined what was going on.  As we climbed above 15;000 feet we noticed that the two navigation systems were slowly syncing back together.  We were able to continue on course and climb to cruise altitude without any other issue.  During the remainder of the flight we did not notice any other system anomalies.Upon arrival; we wrote up the navigation system in the aircraft logbook and advised our maintenance technicians about the issue.  The technician that met the flight advised us that he has seen this same issue being reported by aircraft that have departed ZZZ and that the anomaly is also usually resolved when the aircraft climb up above 10;000 feet.I have been flying this type of aircraft out of ZZZ for about one year and have never heard or seen this issue before.


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


Synopsis: EMB-135 Captain reported a momentary navigation system malfunction that resulted in a course deviation.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The event occurred during traffic pattern operations at ZZZ. There were 3 planes in the pattern. 2 PA-28 planes (1 solo student) and a piper Malibu. The 2 Archers were in left traffic for [Runway] [Runway] XX and the Malibu was in right traffic for [Runway] [Runway] YY. I was number one with the solo student behind me as number 2. Tower instructed the Malibu; who at the time was at around 600 feet MSL on what looked like a right base to [Runway] YY; to enter right downwind for [Runway] XX as number 3 because he was faster than anticipated. The Malibu read back right downwind for [Runway] XX and asked if he should keep it in tight. Tower advised him that he was number 3 for the field. At this point; I was left base turning to final (student was flying at the time) and I looked off to my right and I saw the Malibu coming straight at me at the same altitude. I took the controls; full power; left steep turn to avoid hitting the other plane. The other plane turned final and landed without a landing clearance. I advised Tower of the turn I made and that the plane just cut us off. Tower advised the Malibu to copy a phone number after landing and; thankfully; an accident was avoided. Tower then advised me that he did not know why the plane did that.In hindsight; I believe there was a misunderstanding from the Malibu because he thought that because he was faster; Tower wanted him in first. When he asked Tower if he should keep it in tight; Tower said you're number 3 for the field instead of saying 'negative extend downwind' or something more of a command to ensure the pilot knew what was happening. The weather was not a factor. The pilot should have exercised better judgement and should have tried to get a better picture of who was in the pattern when Tower told him he was number 3.As a CFI; I am going to use this story for all my students about maintaining situational awareness and to always be vigilant and don't expect other pilots to be perfect. If that solo student was number one instead of me; this could have resulted in a tragedy.




Synopsis: Small aircraft instructor pilot reported an NMAC in the pattern.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was flying at 7;000 feet on an IFR flight plan while in contact with ZZZ Approach; had a near miss with Aircraft Y. The aircraft was less than 500 feet away when a deviation from ATC instructions was initiated and a dive down by Aircraft X to 6;000 feet was performed in VMC to avoid a conflict. After the dive and Aircraft Y was no longer a factor ATC advised Aircraft X of a traffic alert after it had occurred. Approach was on [frequency]; the Controller was possibly distracted and did not give traffic prior to it becoming a close call.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an near miss while on an IFR flight; and that ATC issued a traffic alert after the fact.
Date: 201911
Location: ADS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E D10
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While flying due east at 3000 feet; approximately 17 miles east of the Addison airport; I encountered a gold colored Unmanned Aerial Vehicle of some variety. At first; I believed it was a Mylar balloon; but it was quickly obvious that it was actually a drone of some sort. It was exactly at my altitude; and passed at most 50 feet from my right wing. By [the] time; I saw it; I turned to the left; but it was nearly already past at that point. There was no ADS-B track. I was monitoring 122.8; which is used in the Lake Lavon/Lake Ray Hubbard practice areas; as well as most of the nearby airports. I advised of the near-miss to other pilots on frequency; but took no further action.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported NMAC with a UAV.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: NMAC occurred in autopilot cruise at 9;000 ft. in VMC. I looked up to see traffic at approximately 11 o'clock approaching me head-on. I estimate the traffic was between 400 to 500 ft. below my altitude and 200 to 300 ft. to my left. In the time it took to recognize the situation; the traffic had already passed behind me; and I did not see it again. I immediately advised ZFW; including color and type of aircraft. At first; the Center controller did not see anyone else on radar; but after a moment said he could see a primary target with no transponder information right behind me. He did not inquire further; and my flight continued normally.




Synopsis: GA pilot flying reported an NMAC without a traffic alert from ATC.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During pre-flight; engine number 1 fire handle light failed test. Maintenance placed B fire loop on placard. Takeoff from runway 8. During climb passing 14;000 ft engine overheat light illuminated with associated overheat/detec and master caution lights. Leveled off at FL180. [Advised ATC] and started return to [departure airport]. Completed QRH for engine overheat. Light extinguished when throttle closed. Planned flaps 15 landing. When thrust lever increased light did not illuminate. Coordinated with inflight crew for air return and made announcement to passengers. Accomplished visual approach. Taxied clear for fire inspection and shut down number 1 engine. Cleared to taxi; but could not due to brakes locked. Called for Maintenance and tug to move aircraft. Coordinated with ops for air stair and buses to move passengers to terminal. Total time in flight 21 minutes. Time from landing to passengers deplaned 1 hour.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported returning to departure airport after receiving a Number 1 engine overheat warning during initial climb.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working the D-Side; a flight plan printed from Havana Center as Air Carrier X. The strip showed the type aircraft being a B737/Q. When the aircraft transitioned into Miami Approach's airspace; the Controller at Approach had noticed that the aircraft was in fact a B763/Q. On the active strip I had received from our automated data exchange with Havana had showed no remarks. Recommendation; the ADE process with Havana and ZMA still has a few 'bugs' that need to be fixed if this system is to remain full time.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller described the flawed ADE process between ZMA and Havana that involved a wrong aircraft type identification of an inbound aircraft; initially identified as a B737; but later corrected to a B767.
Date: 202102
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Accepted [release]; two wheeled crates containing aircraft ejection seats. While conducting a physical search; we came across a full oxygen cylinder still attached to one of the seats and showing as pressurized. The item description [was] of Emergency O2 Cylinder. The item is about 15 inches by 2.5 inches. Nothing was declared on the documents that were submitted.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ground Personnel reported Cargo Department accepted a cargo shipment which contained a full oxygen cylinder.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was IFR for Runway 26 at PHX. Aircraft Y was IFR for Runway 25L at PHX. Both aircraft were on 30 degree intercepts for their runways and cleared for the visual approach. Aircraft X went through final at almost the same altitude as Aircraft Y on the parallel runway. Separation was less than a mile and maybe 100 ft. Even though both aircraft were cleared for the visual approach and given 30 degree intercept headings they became dangerously close. The operation is completely acceptable in the 7110.65 but is very dangerous. This happens regularly with parallel runway operations at this facility.The 7110.65 needs to be changed to mandate standard separation until aircraft are established inbound on the final approach course. According to the 7110.65 paragraph 7-4-4; nobody is responsible for the IFR separation of 2 IFR aircraft. This operation is extremely unsafe and used at many busy airports with parallel runway operations. Many of the final approach courses are over highly populated cities. The risk of a catastrophic event is high.




Synopsis: P50 TRACON reported a loss of separation between two aircraft on final.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Went to plate the soup; upon twisting the thermos top it exploded like a huge volcano of hot soup in my face; eyes; hair; uniform; shoes; galley walls counters; doors; ceilings it was so powerful that it ricocheted to the wall across the galley and behind me. 4 ft. a complete mess. It ruined a couple settings as well. I was completely blinded and in shock for the first two minutes my eyes and my face were burning and I was shaking with fear; pain and shock. After I realized what happened I immediately called the crew and FD (Flight Deck) and grab some ice and towels. I went to the lavatory to assess my face hands and arms. I have burns and will continue to treat myself until I finish this trip. I was up until XA:00 am doing laundry of my uniform van was at XI:00 am. I noticed many red burn spots on my face; hands and arms. My eyes still sting and are red. I will seek medical treatment when I get home from this trip if symptoms worsen; I will get help right away.We need to be incredibly careful and vigilant about opening the thermos of soup. I believe this experience will and should warrant a service/safety bulletin immediately.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a soup canister exploded as it was being opened and resulted in burns.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Data Processing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On an A320 aircraft; I installed a Data Loading Routing Box (DLRB) Reference AMM 31-38-34. It has been brought to my attention that the correct software was not installed when unit was installed. I don't remember reading that software was to be installed at that time. [Suggest] double check paperwork and check revision dates and check IPC to see if software is to be loaded in units.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) was informed correct software had not installed when he replaced a Data Loading Routing Unit (DLRB) on an A320 aircraft.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ELP.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ELP
ATC / advisory: TRACON ELP
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The event occurred on Aircraft X from PHX to ELP. The weather was clear and daytime flying. As the flight entered the ELP airspace; ATC reported GPS jamming on the frequency. Runway 22 was closed; so the landing runway was 26L. The 2 approaches for this runway are RNAV(GPS) and the VOR RWY 26L. The aircraft was not certified for the RNP approach. We decided on the VOR due to the GPS jamming event. As we approached into ELP airspace we received an ECAM message: NAV FM/GPS POS disagree. Obviously due to the jamming event. The flight was in visual/daytime conditions; thus confirming position was quickly verified. During the VOR approach; First Officer was flying with autopilot on. Approximately 6-8 miles on final I noticed the flight track on Captain's ND (NAV Display) was starting to wander to the left. The First Officer's ND was showing normal indications; but wisely decided to turn off the autopilot and continue visually. At approximately 5 miles on final; we noticed the [VNAV] was commanding a much lower altitude than what was needed to remain on a normal 3 degree flight path to landing. The First Officer disregarded the false indications; and again preceded visually 3 to 1 with the VASI to and normal landing. Cause: GPS jamming probably from the Whites Sands missile range. Suggestions: I would highly recommend alerting crews in advance of these kind of events. This is in addition to ATIS and ATC reporting. I would highly recommend an alternate in the flight plan. If during night/IFR operations and Runway 22 closed; the only means to fly an approach would be raw data VOR.




Synopsis: Air carrier non flying pilot reported GPS jamming while maneuvering for the arrival. Jamming was reported by ATC.