elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ORF.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ORF
ATC / advisory: TRACON ORF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I am filing this report report as a method of feedback; because after we landed I was bothered as to whether or not I did the right thing.  The approach chart for the ILS 5 at ORF has a note saying that 'autopilot coupled approaches are not auth. below 744 ft.' After briefing the approach I decided to disconnect the autopilot at 744 ft msl.  At almost exactly that point on the approach; the glide slope indication became slightly unstable; the glideslope needle started indicating low scale momentarily; and then returning to center.  Because of the note on the approach chart I would say that I was mentally prepared for some kind of variation; at no time did it indicate a full scale deviation; nor did the approach become unstable.  We 'broke out' right at min's and landed safely; but after parking the aircraft; and going to the hotel I felt that the Glideslope indication was out of the ordinary and I should report it.  At no time did I feel like I should go around the glideslope needle variation never reached full scale nor did the approach become unstable. I think that whatever is the cause of the note on the approach chart about autopilot coupled approaches not being auth; below 744 [ft] msl needs to be identified and fixed.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain noted an ORF Runway 5 glideslope deflection near 700 ft at about the point which the ILS 5 approach chart advised 'autopilot coupled approaches are not auth. below 744 ft.'
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While beginning initial descent; with carb heat on; the engine lost power. After switching tanks turning fuel pump on with no resolution; considered landing options. Determined unable to safely make any airport in vicinity began looking for most suitable off airport landing spot. Located an open field with no apparent obstructions and landed with no damage to pilot or aircraft. Apparently landed adjacent to private grass strip that was not apparent to me at the time. Upon landing and determining no damage to aircraft or myself began to troubleshoot aircraft. Upon draining fuel from both wings found water in both tanks. Previously prior to morning flight had sumped both tanks and found water. Continued to drain the fuel until no water appeared. Flew 148 NM that morning. The incident occurred upon the return flight about 13 miles short of destination. The plane was on ramp for approximately 8 hours in clear conditions I did not sump the fuel prior to return trip due to clear conditions throughout the day and did not take on more fuel. Upon conversation with experienced pilots of this type aircraft the best practice is to shake the wing vigorously in order to make sure any water gets to the drain and sump again.




Synopsis: C177 pilot reports power loss as descent is initiated for landing. With insufficient altitude to reach the destination airport resulting in a successful off airport landing. Water is found in the fuel; as it was prior to departure and thought to be thoroughly drained.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FBL.Airport, MN
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Stearman
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E FBL
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; 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: I was completing a pleasure flight on a beautiful summer afternoon in my Stearman; approaching FBL; from the northeast; at about 1;800 MSL (about 800 AGL). Something caught my eye to my right at my altitude; and I thought it was probably a hawk; a common sighting in Minnesota. I turned my head and looked; and was surprised to see the 'hawk' had what appeared to be attachments (gear? antenna? camera?)! It passed about 300 FT off my right wingtip. Very glad I didn't hit it; as a Stearman is very blind straight ahead; and if it had been about 300 FT further to the left I never would have seen it until I hit it! So much for the 400 FT max altitude for drones I guess!




Synopsis: Stearman pilot reports a NMAC with a drone at 800 FT approaching FBL. No evasive action is taken as the drone passes 300 FT off the right wing co-altitude.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LRU.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; 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 descending into LRU airport; I heard ATC call to another aircraft (Aircraft Y) that was also inbound. I was arriving from the west; and Aircraft Y from the north; North West area. I could see him on ADS-B. While Aircraft Y was behind me; he was much faster; however ABQ (Albuquerque) center had him climb and then hold as I continued my descent. Leveling off at my assigned altitude; I was still unable to see the airfield; despite the field reports of better weather. I was; however; still several miles away. At about the same time; Aircraft Y called in; cancelling his IFR stating that he had the airport in sight. ATC cancelled his IFR as he stated he was now in VMC. I then asked ATC for a report from the Aircraft Y; as he was able to see the field and I was not; despite me being at a lower altitude. (I asked hoping I would break out of the clouds soon; or find an area where I could; such as where Aircraft Y came from). Quickly after; I did get the airport insight below me and was able to descend VFR. I also cancelled my IFR at that time.Being almost over the airport; I extended away from it and then I called entering the Left downwind for runway 26. (The winds at the time were reported as being 240 at 22 - 27; making runway 22 or 26 the best options.) I then called a base turn; and then final. At that time I also heard Aircraft Y call in for the RNAV for runway 12. Being as he cancelled IFR with no mention of practicing approaches; I anticipated his landing before me; with no conflict. As I came on short final for runway 26; I heard Aircraft Y call out that he was going missed from 12; which would then be intersecting my landing path. At that moment I looked up and saw Aircraft Y just ahead and to my right; above me; but very close. I would estimate within 200-300 feet. Already being close to the ground; no evasion action could have been taken. I landed and taxied into the ramp. Shortly after; Aircraft Y landed on a different runway and parked as well. I called the center to report the incident and express my concern and safety issue that had occurred.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an NMAC after both aircraft had been cleared for the visual approach into LRU.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Loss of power during take off. Did not get airborne. Had to power slide the aircraft to stop. Aircraft went off the end of the runway into grass. No damage to propeller. No damage to landing gear. Aircraft was put back into hanger for maintenance inspection.




Synopsis: A PA-28 140 lost power during the takeoff roll and as the pilot rejected the takeoff the aircraft exited the runway end without sustaining any damage.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AIK.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E AIK
ATC / advisory: CTAF AIK
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aiken; SC is one of the outlying airfields used by corporate/charter/GA for sporting events. [This] week there was a high volume of traffic using AIK. I witnessed an aircraft land in the opposite direction of prevailing traffic without making a single position or intent to land call. Also; the 'Ground' frequency advertised on ATIS was actually a Ramp Control frequency. It turned out to be someone in a golf cart with a hand held radio coordinating parking spots. It was nearly impossible to hear him when he was in close proximity to operating aircraft on the ramp. In addition there was an aircraft making practice approaches during this busy time. He was practicing holding at a fix directly along the route that departure vectored us to pick up the SAMMI 2 departure. In the future ATC should issue a NOTAM identifying AIK as a high volume traffic airport during sporting events to discourage practice approaches. The idea of a Ramp Control frequency/Parking Coordinator was a good one. Better execution would put this person away from the high decibel output of jet engines.




Synopsis: Falcon Captain offers ATC and ground operations suggestions for the AIK airport during high traffic periods.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was landing on 24R.  As he was rolling out; I noticed on the ASDE-X that his target & tag disappeared from the ASDE-X display; but the digital display of an Aircraft landing or departing on 24R was still lit. As Aircraft X exited at Zulu I told him to cross 24L and to contact ground.  His target & tag still weren't showing on the ASDE-X.  It never showed even while he was taxiing eastbound on Echo.  I reported the incident to the supervisor.This is the second time I observed an incident like this occur relating to a small sized aircraft. It happened a few days ago concerning a BE35 aircraft on the same exact path as Aircraft X.  I did not file a report on the first event.  But after seeing it happen again; I figured that there must be something wrong that needs to be addressed.I simply recommend that the Techs in charge of installing the particular ground radar sensors somehow raise the sensitivity level so that each target is captured and displayed as a moving target.  But I mainly recommend that all checks be accomplished to determine the cause of this occurring.  That way a solution can be attained.




Synopsis: An LAX Local Controller; while watching an aircraft on the ASDE-X; sees the target and identification tag disappear. The digital display of a target was still showing. He had seen this before on another small aircraft but didn't do anything about it; so this time he reported it.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While doing a CFI spin flight; the student was in the middle of climbing out of a spin recovery when the engine popped and began to vibrate severely. Instructor had the student level off and reduce the throttle and then asked if the student felt the vibration; too. Student said yes and that the yoke was vibrating severely as well. Instructor and Student made the decision to return back to ZZZ.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported a significant engine vibration and elected to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On our descent into PAE; Seattle Center changed our arrival to the CHINS 9. We received a descent to FL240.  I was getting the ATIS on VHF 2 and we received a descent via the CHINS 9. Pilot flying gave the briefing and stated crossing RADDY at 250 knots and 11;000 feet. The STAR serves several airports and has a two different landing south crossing restriction of 16;000 feet and 11;000 feet.  I thought Boeing Field was another name for Paine Field. I finished the landing data and at approximately 13;000 feet Center asked what altitude we were descending to.  I replied 11;000 feet.  He stated descend to 12;000 feet and gave us vectors for our approach into Paine Field. As the Pilot Monitoring; I should have asked Seattle Center for clarification of the crossing restriction. Better review of the arrival into an unfamiliar airport.


Second narrative: On initial descent to PAE field; we were cleared to descend via the CHINS 9 Arrival landing south. Being that it was my first time landing at PAE; I mistakenly referred to PAE as Boeing Field in my descent briefing. With that said; I briefed a crossing restriction at RADDY of 250 knots and 11;000 FT for landing Boeing Field; as it states on the CHINS 9 STAR. I did not recognize that PAE and Boeing Field were different airports until about 10 miles southeast of RADDY; when we were at 13;000 FT MSL; below the correct crossing restriction at RADDY of 16;000 FT MSL. We advised ATC; which at that time; we were given vectors to a normal descent and approach to PAE.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew becomes confused after being assigned the CHINS9 landing PAE; believing PAE is Boeing Field and complies with the wrong crossing restriction.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Agriculture
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D EMT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: A380
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: A satellite tower called the Flight Data Sector on the dial line to report that a Aircraft X reported extreme turbulence at 2300 feet. Tower also said the pilot reported a 60 degree bank and loss of 200 to 300 feet of altitude. The Flight Data controller passed that information to me while I was the Supervisor in charge. It sounded like wake turbulence to me so I looked at the falcon replay and observed a VFR target at 2300 feet transitioning the Class D and Aircraft Y on a base leg 3000 feet descending. The replay showed the VFR target turn abruptly and lose 100 feet of altitude. I called the satellite airport Tower back to confirm the callsign of the VFR aircraft and how the pilot described the turbulence report. I also called the VFR aircraft's Operations to confirm the event; the pilot said it felt like wake turbulence. Furthermore; the individual I spoke with at Operations confirmed that they were going to file a report through their internal reporting system. As larger aircraft are introduced in the NAS there is a need to have procedures in place to mitigate wake events. As heavy and super category aircraft descend into the main airport the Class D airspace of a satellite airport could be compromised by the wake turbulence created. I do not have direct knowledge of the procedures currently in place between but those who do should look into this event and the possibility of ensuring that future wake related events like this do not occur.




Synopsis: A TRACON Supervisor reported a light aircraft in a satellite airport airspace reported a wake vortex encounter with a Super aircraft on approach to another airport.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While operating Aircraft X; we experienced loss of thrust in the right engine while we were leveling off at 8;000 ft on the ZZZZZ 2 Arrival into ZZZ1. Earlier that morning; when we started the engines in ZZZ. We noticed that the right engine was approaching a hung start; however; it stabilized while it was still within the limitations. The Captain and I confirmed that the engine had stabilized and all engine indications appeared normal. Everything remained normal until our arrival into ZZZ1. The Captain was Pilot Flying; and when he increased thrust to arrest our descent and level off at 8;000 ft; we noticed that the right engine did not respond to the thrust lever. The thrust remained around 30% N1 regardless of the thrust lever position. We then notified ATC and requested radar vectors. Once we were on vectors; we ran the QRH for 'Thrust Lever Inoperative' 1-34. After discussing the situation; we determined that since the thrust was remaining at idle; it was in the interest of reducing complexity and increasing safety to keep the right engine operating at idle. We then ran the 'Single Engine Approach and Landing'  QRH 1-27 and configured accordingly. We continued the approach and landed uneventfully. We advised ATC that we did not need assistance taxiing to the gate. Once we arrived at the gate; we performed the shutdown procedure. When we shut down the right engine; it took multiple attempts to get the thrust lever to shut the engine down. After completing the shutdown checklist; we advised Maintenance of the issue.




Synopsis: First Officer reported unable to control engine with thrust lever; resulting in a precautionary emergency landing with the engine remaining at idle.