elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Began position reporting 10 miles north of ZZZ and reported position at 5 miles and 1 mile from the airport. Upon hearing a slower aircraft on left crosswind I widened my pattern and slowed to stay outside this aircraft until I had it in sight. During this time another aircraft departed that I did not see or hear on the CTAF. Paths crossed with 300 feet separation. I didn't see this aircraft until someone on the frequency mentioned their position. It bothered me that despite vigilance and planning to avoid known traffic flows we came this close. Maneuvering space at this airport is compressed by its proximity to another airport and Class C airspace. Ironically; this aircraft was being flown to this airport for avionics that would include traffic reporting capabilities.




Synopsis: A pilot flying into a non towered airport reported a NMAC with a departing aircraft.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RNM.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower RNM
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was providing night instruction to a private pilot. We departed for the purposes of doing takeoffs and landings. This is the second night flight I have had with this student. On the first flight the student was unprepared and was not up to speed on airport and approach lighting systems. He was assigned homework to become familiar with airport and approach lighting systems prior to a second flight. On this second flight he was also unprepared. Arriving in the airport area the Tower assigned him a left base entry and requested he report 2 miles south. He was having difficulty finding the airport and was high and fast. I was distracted in assisting him find the airport; talking him down and confirming the landing gear was down and missed the 2 mile report. Turning final I was further distracted explaining the PAPI system and how to fly it. We landed without a clearance. While on the ground the Tower controller asked us our position.When informed we were on the ground the controller advised that the Tower was closing for the night and to call them in the morning. To me there are 2 issues here. One is that I missed the 2 mile call and then landed without a clearance. I accept the responsibility for that. The second issue is that I believe the Tower controller was not paying attention to his traffic. It was a clear VFR night. The aircraft had operating position; strobes and landing light and we were the only aircraft in in the Class D airspace. He should have noticed we were closer than 2 miles and either inquired as to our position or; since there was no conflicting traffic; issued us a landing clearance. The Tower does have radar. I don't know what 'the fix' would be other than to pay better attention and not become distracted; but I was more concerned about flying the plane and not becoming a statistic.




Synopsis: GA flight instructor reported becoming distracted with a student pilot; missed a two mile check in report and landed without a clearance.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RDM.Airport, OR
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower RDM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Today my flight experienced an RA while conducting the RNAV GPS Runway 05 approach into Redmond Oregon. We were on the approach in VFR conditions and had joined the final approach having been cleared for the approach itself. We were following the instructions per the company advisory letter that our 121 operations into this airport would comply and fly the instrument approach procedure via the designated transitions in lieu of visual approaches in an effort to reduce or eliminate the numerous RAs into the airport. Just outside of the final approach fix we were advised of and saw traffic on our TCAS below our altitude coming at us. On the descent on the established final the traffic gave us a TA and continued towards us followed by an RA AT OUR ALTITUDE advising us to 'descend descend descend now'. I estimated we were well within 100 ft. of the single engine Cessna which was on a northerly heading possibly a right downwind for Runway 11. Tower asked [if we] were able to continue the approach after the RA and we were. This occurred at approximately 4600 ft. MSL. Despite being told that student pilots would be told to keep clear of the instrument approach corridors; it seems as though this wasn't being enforced. This pilot not only had no situational awareness for inbound traffic but was clearly in an area where he was not supposed to be. If you have airline traffic using Runway 05 and students are doing pattern work on Runway 11; then it might be better suited for them to use left traffic and left downwind departures to 'designated practice areas' for maneuvers. Also hanging around the final approach where jet traffic is on approach was to be discouraged (I thought) so maybe the associated schools and instructors should be reminded to emphasize these procedures more forcefully.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving an NMAC on approach to RDM from a light aircraft apparently on a training mission.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On Takeoff roll just after V1; I (Pilot Flying) noticed a flock of geese hanging out on the final 1/3 of Runway XX. As I rotated; they took off but stayed low. We informed Tower of the birds while entering initial climb. As we went to clean up the flaps; I noticed the engine telemetry boxes flashing white and the left (Number 1) engine indicated a low oil quantity. At this point; I indicated to the Captain (Pilot Monitoring) that the indication was abnormal and we thought it MIGHT be related to the birds on the runway. The Captain took controls and we leveled at 3;000 feet as per the clearance. We indicated to ATC that we might have a problem and that possibly the birds had something to do with it.While level; we assessed the condition of the engines and initially found the oil quantity to be decreasing in Number 1 as we added thrust. Then; the quantity levels stabilized. We initiated a climb with ATC to test the thrust/oil quantity/engine performance and found the Number 1 engine to be acting normally; but with a lower quantity than on the Number 2 and less than what we started the leg with. At this point; we determined that we needed to come back around for a landing and inspection in case there was bird ingestion or an engine oil problem (in an abundance of caution). We ran the QRH for engine shutdown just in case we actually lost the engine. We opted to perform a flaps 40 landing as we were overweight and had a 'normal' performing engine. We asked for an approach to Runway XX and had the trucks rolling so as to ascertain the physical condition of the aircraft before returning to the gate in ZZZ. The approach; landing; rollout; and taxi in were all uneventful. ARFF [Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting] found no damage to the aircraft (and no bird carcasses were found on the runway). Contract Maintenance performed the engine inspection as well as the overweight landing inspection; finding no damage. The result was a deferred Number 1 oil quantity indicator and oil service for both engines.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported possibly striking birds after takeoff.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGE.Airport, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp EGE
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While reviewing the EGE Engine Out recovery procedure for Runway 25 we found a disconnect between the waypoint OUUTT on the Commercial Chart in this aircraft. The discrepancy manifested itself when we were comparing the FMS distance and headings against the Commercial Chart distance and headings. FMS Data Base waypoint for OUUTT; N3935.50 W 10702.00 Commercial Chart waypoint for OUUTT; N3934.50 W10702.2. The difference in the N coordinates caused a substantial course and distance difference. Furthermore; the waypoint LOOOK on the Commercial Chart is actually in the FMS listed as 'LOOOK P WPT' and the LOOOK waypoint in the DEN area is listed as 'LOOOK USA.' Please review all FMS against the Engine Out procedure at EGE for both runways for accuracy between Commercial Charts and the FMS.

Callback: The reporter stated that this event was the result of a previous crew manually entering this departure's FMS waypoint coordinates incorrectly. So when he entered the waypoint name the FMS memory recalled the correctly named but geographically misidentified waypoint. The reporter believes the real issue is training pilots to clear the FMS's pilot stored waypoints and then carefully identify waypoint coordinated during preflight; as his crew did.



Synopsis: A pilot reported his aircraft's FMS recalled an Engine Out waypoint with incorrect geographical coordinates because a previous crew had manually entered a correctly named waypoint with incorrect coordinates.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B HNL
ATC / advisory: Tower HNL
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was Local Assist to a developmental receiving On-The-Job Training (OJT) from a Certifed Professional Controller (CPC) on Local Control. Aircraft X was cleared to land Runway 08L. Aircraft Y was cleared to land Runway 04R. Winds prohibited Land and Hold-Short Operations (LAHSO). I advised the developmental that the two aircraft were tied to the field. Aircraft Y turned to final and the developmental stated that the two aircraft looked to be tied to the field and asked if Aircraft Y should be instructed to go around. I replied; 'Yes.' No go around was issued and both aircraft crossed their respective runway thresholds nearly simultaneously.A dramatic culture change needs to occur. This is not an infrequent occurrence with Local Control being confident that aircraft on crossing runways will not roll to the runway intersections thereby allowing simultaneous landings on crossing runways with winds prohibiting LAHSO operations and not issuing go arounds; and Approach Controllers creating ties to crossing runways and expecting that Local Control will fix it.




Synopsis: HNL Controller reports of an operational error due to two aircraft landing at the same time on crossing runways. No go-around instructions were issued to any aircraft.
Date: 201909
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Reverser Lockout
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Thrust reverser was safe tied inoperative for Maintenance Task Card. ELB (electric log book) entry was made as an update and overlooked when returning aircraft to service.




Synopsis: Technician reported that thrust reverser was safe tied inoperative for Maintenance and never reactivated.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Took off from runway 23R and continued runway heading. Around 2500 feet departure had us make a right turn. In the turn we got a FUEL IMBALANCE message. I looked down at the fuel and saw we were dropping fuel out of the right tank quickly. At that point I told the First Officer to look out the window and see if he could see any fuel off the wing. He replied saying the fuel is coming off the wing tip. At that point I told him to turn the autopilot on; and to turn the fuel pump off on that wing; cross feed open; and to were returning to the field. We stopped our climb at 5000 as ATC told us to return to 4000. I spoke to the flight attendant and the passengers to let them know we were returning to our departure airport where we landed safely. When we landed the fuel was showing 3000 in the left tank and 2400 in the right tank.


Second narrative: We landed without any further events other than we were overweight for landing. Upon returning to the gate maintenance performed several tests and said they could not duplicate the problem and they returned the aircraft to service.


Synopsis: An EMB-145 flight crew returned to their departure airport shortly after takeoff when they received a fuel imbalance message and observed a fuel stream exiting the right wingtip. Maintenance was unable to duplicate the problem and returned the aircraft to service.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On COWBY 4 Departure; turning over RBELL; we encountered jet wash severe enough that I grabbed the yoke although I was pilot not flying. At the same time; we were given directions from Departure Control. Plane rolled right and then left winding up in 30-degree left bank. Autopilot remained engaged as did LNAV and VNAV; but the plane continued turning left. Departure Control's instruction was; 'Delete the altitude at ROPPR but maintain current speed.' I had to ask for a retransmit due to radio congestion. We were in a left turn and were probably about 30 degrees left of a heading that would have taken us to ROPPR; the next SID fix. Began the correction at which time Departure Control queried whether we were proceeding to ROPPR; They said; 'Appeared you turned early.' I confirmed our clearance and that we were proceeding to ROPPR. Five to ten seconds later; he asked if we had traffic (arrival traffic) at '10 o'clock; 1;000 high'. I responded affirmatively and he came back with; 'Proceed on course; maintain visual on the traffic.' I responded and we continued toward ROPPR turning short of it so as to proceed as quickly as possible to the SID course's next fix of CESAR. No further problems and no TCAS alerts. Note; Autopilot and LNAV/VNAV remained engaged but the aircraft did not correct to course; almost as if it went to CWS. [I] discussed at length with First Officer after reaching altitude. Perhaps a more aggressive correction to course but that's obvious. We just got set up with the simultaneous radio call/congestion and the turbulence induced heading change/automation error which neither of us caught quickly enough to avoid the course deviation to the extent that it occurred. [We] should have disengaged autopilot sooner than we did. It just appeared that the auto pilot was correcting or was set up to do so but did not come back to course.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information]


Synopsis: B737-700 encountered wake vortex departing LAS that caused a deviation from the departure track.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: YSSY.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower YSSY
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On short Final upon selecting landing gear handle down the RH Main Gear Down Light was not illuminated. Conducted a lights TEST and verified light bulbs were inoperative. Elected a go-around to further troubleshoot and run the associated checklist. Aircraft was maintained in positive control and flight profile was done well. Informed ATC of problem and requested vectors for extended downwind for time management. Taking into consideration previous experience on this aircraft of the same light bulbs being burnt out during preflight checks; the crew agreed the issue was a false indication. However; we also inappropriately concluded the Gear Unsafe Checklist was not appropriate and failed to blow the gear down in accordance with correct procedure. We were tired; more concerned with flying the plane and convinced of a false indication. We were ultimately proven right with an uneventful and nice landing.


Second narrative: Once established at a safe altitude; a short discussion ensued about a lack of other warnings such as Gear Disagree EICAS; GPWS Too Low Gear; Gear Warning Horn with Flap setting beyond 20 selected and lightbulb test with no bulbs lit on right main gear. Pilot flying called for the non-normal checklist. After a short discussion to ensure correct non-normal checklist was selected; we referenced the Gear Disagree non-normal checklist. Second approach and landing was safe and uneventful. After block-in; it became apparent that the Gear Disagree Checklist [had not been] fully completed [and a] discrepancy was noted in aircraft maintenance logbook...... In addition; a lack of adequate rest facilities in combination with the long stage-length contributed to our failure to complete the non-normal checklist in its entirety. The current rest facilities onboard our 767 fleet is inadequate. At best; they have 10 degrees of recline with no way to elevate legs and feet.


Synopsis: After noting that neither light bulb in the Right Main Gear green light had illuminated; fatigue and the conviction that the lack of additional expected alerts caused the flight crew of a B767-300ER to land uneventfully without completing the Gear Disagree non-normal checklist.