elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 100
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Due to GPS jamming operations at SLC our aircraft is severely affected. We were given the SEVYR2 departure which is 260 heading on departure RV on course. Looking at the schematics of the departure both pilot flying and I had interpreted 260 heading to intercept 193 radial off of TCH on course. We began to intercept the radial and ATC noticed us turning and corrected our course back to the departure heading. A fix would be to thoroughly read the textual description and not rely on the picture diagram.




Synopsis: Embraer Phenom 100 First Officer reported losing a reliable GPS signal; which he attributed to military activity in the area. This resulted in a deviation from the published departure which was remedied with ATC assistance.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approach Control slowed us to final approach speed a couple miles outside FAF; so we configured fully and slowed to 135 knots. We were following a Regional Jet and had them and the runway in sight. Heard another flight check in behind us on the approach. We landed uneventfully on Runway XXR knowing the other aircraft behind us must be close; so I took the first available right turn; [onto] Runway YY. ATC did not tell us to expedite off the runway; but I knew the traffic must be close behind us as we had been doing 135 knots for the last six to seven miles of our approach. Tower Controller saw us turning onto Runway YY and directed us to return to Runway XXR; which I began to do and could have completed safely. Tower then revised the instruction to remain on Runway YY and exit at Taxiway A and contact Ground; which we did. We were informed that another aircraft had been issued a take-off clearance on Runway YY prior to our entering that runway. We were both surprised to learn of that. ATC then rescinded the takeoff clearance of the other aircraft. We completed the taxi to the gate uneventfully. I contacted ATC via the phone number they had given us and provided my name and certificate number per their request.Upon completing the flight; the First Officer and I read the AIM again; specifically part 4-3-20; which addresses our error in departing an active runway onto another runway. I genuinely believe that would not have occurred had I not been concerned about the aircraft behind us on the approach. I was also surprised to learn that another aircraft on an intersecting runway had been issued a takeoff clearance prior to our passing through that intersecting runway. And; of course; I was concerned that we had created a conflict. I don't know the Controller's responsibilities in that regard and of course I have operated many times when local operations were on intersecting runways; but I do not recollect that happening before. Regardless; we certainly did not intentionally create the conflict and I truly regret my error.


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported turning onto an active runway after landing due to concern that traffic close behind.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: About ten-miles from ZZZ; we were cleared to descend to 1600' and cleared for the ILS XX. Weather was Day; CAVU (Clear Visibility Unlimited); and we were at about 3000'; flaps 5; landing gear down; and about 175 knots. The autopilot caught the localizer and glideslope; and I disconnected the autopilot and autothrottle at about 3000'. At about 2500' on glideslope; the Approach Controller told us to expedite our descent for traffic at 1 to 2 o'clock. As I was hand flying; I asked for flaps 15; and began descent below the glideslope; and we could see the traffic on the horizon (appeared to be a high-wing; single-engine GA aircraft); and got a TA on TCAS. The aircraft showed 300' above us on TCAS. Shortly thereafter; we received a 'DESCEND' RA. I increased my descent rate to comply with the guidance. I would guess I was doing about 1500 fpm descent at about 175 knots. The GA aircraft passed directly over the ILS XX final; and directly over us by less than 1000'; and probably closer to 500'. We received 'clear of conflict' at about 1300'; leveled; configured; and complied with stabilized approach criteria by 1000' AGL; so we continued the approach and informed TRACON; who said they thought ZZZ Tower was trying to get him to stop his descent. I don't believe Passengers were aware of the incident.Airspace that provides more protection to IFR aircraft on a published instrument approach going into ZZZ. We should not be getting DESCEND RAs below 2;000' while on (or actually below) glideslope on approach into a towered airport. (unless; of course; the GA aircraft was at fault and not compliant with regulations. Then the preventative measure would be corrective action against the pilot.)




Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a near miss with a GA Aircraft on final.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Given a clearance to taxi from the Ramp; T to 4 to P hold short of 30L.  After crossing 30L and while on 4; looking for P; I crossed 30R; thinking I had clearance to cross 30R; but then realizing I already had clearance for 30L! Realized it while an aircraft flew overhead and by that time I was already across 30R. Followed instructions from Tower and called in when I got to my destination. Please do not use Runway 4 for taxiing operations during night/low light time. There are no wig wag lights when one is on the runway; as opposed to a taxiway.




Synopsis: A pilot taxiing on Runway 4 to Taxiway P; was cleared to cross Runway 30L; but became confused and realized after crossing Runway 30R that he did not have clearance to do so.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLE.Tower, OH
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: Tower CLE
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I'm not sure what caused the aircraft to start climbing; but wanted to submit a report for tracking purposes in case there is an aircraft specific issue or something related to how the flight management system flies this particular arrival and transition.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported an uncommanded climb during approach to CLE airport.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after departure; I was notified by the flight attendant that a leakage of fuel was observed by one of the passengers. Upon a brief inspection from the cabin; I determined that we had a significant fuel leak coming from the right wing. The leak appeared to be coming between the right aileron and the outboard portion of the wing. At that point; an emergency was declared due to the fact I had no idea what the cause of the leak was. We turned around and landed uneventfully where we were met by emergency personal. I was the captain on the flight performing PNF (Pilot Not Flying) /PM (Pilot Monitoring) duties at the time of the emergency.




Synopsis: Gulfstream IV Captain reported returning to departure airport after a fuel leak was noticed by a passenger.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While transitioning back to [departure airport]; the engine started making a loud banging noise. I scanned the instrument cluster and saw the RPM's surging and manifold pressure spiking. I decided that we could not make it back to [departure airport] and lowered collective and picked a field to land in to check it out. I make an expeditious descent and land with power at the bottom with no other damage to the helicopter. Upon landing I saw white smoke coming from behind us; so I told my student to get out and see if we are on fire as I rapidly shut down the helicopter and pull fuel. There was no fire; just smoke from oil burning on the muffler.




Synopsis: R44 Instructor reported a precautionary landing in a field due to power fluctuations.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ACV.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SA 365 Dauphin 2
Operator: Military
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Beechcraft / Beech Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were returning to ACV with a second MH-65C approximately 3 NM in trail. As the first aircraft approached Trinidad Head; a large rock outcropping 6 NM NW of ACV; the PM transmitted their current position and altitude of 600 AGL and intentions to land on CTAF. Shortly thereafter; the PF made a slight left turn around Trinidad Head and noticed a small; low wing; single engine aircraft less than a quarter of a mile off the MH-65C's 12 o'clock position. The PF called out the traffic to the crew; announced intent to make a descending right turn; reduced power; and made a smooth 10-20 AOB turn to avoid the oncoming aircraft. Simultaneously; the PM warned the second MH-65C (still in trail) of the oncoming traffic to avoid a second incident. The general aviation aircraft passed to the left and above the MH65C within an estimated separation of 225 FT. The general aviation aircraft was not observed taking any evasive maneuvers.Additional Findings and Corrective Actions Taken:1. TCAS did not display the target; nor did it provide a traffic alert. During preflight checks; the TCAS tested properly with no deficiencies. It is suspected that the general aviation aircraft was not equipped with an operating transponder.2. No radio calls were heard over the ACV CTAF from the general aviation aircraft. The MH-65C was monitoring the ACV CTAF within 10 NM of the field in accordance with section 4-1-9 of the AIM. Additionally; the ARC210 was tested and found to be fully operational and configured properly. It is suspected that the general aviation aircraft was not utilizing or monitoring the ACV CTAF.3. A transmission was heard on ACV CTAF just prior to the mishap of an aircraft on short final to Runway 32. It was confirmed later that this was not the aircraft involved in the mishap. There were two separate general aviation aircraft in the terminal area at the time of the mishap.13. Recommendations: It is unknown if the general aviation aircraft involved in this mishap is a locally based aircraft or an aircraft transiting the area. However; as members of the local Pilot's Association; we intend to discuss this mishap with the civilian pilots who operate in and around the local area to make them more aware of locations where they may likely encounter a CG aircraft.




Synopsis: A helicopter suffered an NMAC with a Bonanza in the vicinity of ACV airport. The Bonanza pilot's suspected failure to utilize CTAF for position reporting was cited as a contributing factor by the reporter.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying a touch-and-go in VMC after flying ~ 1.3 hrs (from ZZZ1 to ZZZ2 then ZZZ). About 0.25-0.5 miles from TO (takeoff) end of runway at ~ 300 ft.; aircraft experienced a sudden loss of power and then power surged back. Aircraft remained to feel underpowered and unable to climb. I got priority handling with ZZZ Tower at that time.I was able to enter a low altitude downwind and make short-final for Runway XX with no further incident. On final touch and go at ZZZ2 (directly before the incident at ZZZ) it seemed in retrospect like the aircraft didn't develop full power as expected. This was minor and could also have been an unrelated factor.Potential contributors:1) Prior to departing ZZZ1; I noticed some corrosion on left tip tank fuel sump. There was a few small drops of water in the tip tank. The fuel selector had been left on that tank while sitting on the ground for the previous 2 weeks. The tank was not used in flight. 2) I had used nearly all of the right tip tank in my approach to ZZZ (burned all but last 1-2 gallons); flipped to Main Left tank prior to touch and go. It's possible that that switch was too late and injected a bubble that worked it way through after applying full throttle? 3) [Human Factors] Busy day of touch and goes with MVMC ceilings and BR (mist) in the area.




Synopsis: Pilot reported water in the fuel as a possible reason for power loss on a touch and go; resulting in an Air Turn Back and a precautionary emergency landing.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Data Transmission and Automatic Calling
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Received PDC via CPDLC with a FMC load prompt for a reroute. Wasn't clear what the change was; but the beginning said direct SYRAH; which is on the TRUKN2 SID.  We loaded the change and that removed TYDYE; TRUKN and COSMC. Unsure this was what ATC intended; we called Clearance to verify.  ATC said no we were to fly the TRUKN 2 as published.They mentioned other 777 and 787 flying direct SYRAH on this departure. Something is wrong with the datalink PDC.




Synopsis: B787 F/O reported the PDC reroute they received via CPDLC was in error.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During taxi out; was given taxi instructions for 22L; then 28R; then 22L B to D behind two other air carrier jets. With all the taxi instructions; changes; congestion on the radio; when the two jets went by; I followed them. When we were coming out of F; I continued to follow; and went past B to N; still following. It was night and [the taxiway] signs somewhat covered with snow. When on N I realized my error and informed ground. They said 'no worries use 28R at EE.'So many times at ORD taxi instructions are to 'follow XXX.' I fell into that trap and did. I will increase my vigilance to ensure follow is only for so long and then continue assigned route.


Second narrative: ...Seconds later received taxi clearance to 22l...going behind 2 [approaching air carrier jets]. Normal clearances in ORD [often] contain follow aircraft instruction. Ours apparently was a taxi behind but don't follow.Chicago is not standard in the way they issue taxi clearances and I believe there was some crossover interference from previous ways clearances were giving when interpreting this one. A lot of shortcuts are taken to save radio time in Chicago.


Synopsis: When cleared to taxi to a specific runway at ORD behind two approaching air carrier jets the flight crew of a B737NG interpreted that to mean follow them to their cleared runway. During their taxi they became aware the two they were taxiing behind were cleared to a different runway. ATC switched their runway rather than try to reroute them to their original runway.