elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to descent the RNAV (RNPZ) for Runway 35R was briefed and programmed into the FMC as the expected clearance. We discussed as a crew both options of 1) connecting the arrival and approach prior to actual clearance; creating the threat of a turn without clearance; or 2) leaving a discontinuity in the FMC which would be closed once clearance was received. During the arrival we received numerous speed changes and a relatively late clearance for the approach. As Pilot Flying (PF) I asked the Pilot Monitoring (PM) to close the discontinuity. I observed him working in the box and verified the change. Though I verified the change I was distracted with managing an assigned speed change and aircraft configuration and did not recognize that the FMC was not correctly sequenced. [A crosscheck] was performed and all appeared correct as the FMAs for the arrival presented the same as they would for the approach (LNAV/VNAV PATH and a centered path indication on the ND). Upon arriving at the point beginning the RF leg the aircraft did not begin its turn and the FMC error became apparent. ATC queried us regarding our course and subsequently vectored us off the approach.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported a track deviation occurred on the RNAV (RNP) Z Approach to DEN after a late clearance and failing to catch a discontinuity in the briefing.
Date: 201310
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: There is a trend on 737 flight plans that consistently have arriving fuel loads without any consideration for go-arounds. Most flight plans; where no alternate is required; have flights landing with approximately 5K LBS. A go-around requires at least 1k-1.5K LBS of fuel which would result in a 'fuel low lights illuminated' (below 4K LBS) status. There is also a trend for Dispatch to file aircraft at higher flight levels and minimum arrival fuel; thus no 'room for error' if forced to fly at lower altitudes due to weather and/or ride conditions thus a higher fuel burn. I have literally been told by Dispatch when asking for more fuel; they would rather not add because they would be forced to remove passengers and that I could consider 'landing short' if need be. Reserve fuel loads; approximately 3K -3.8K LBS (unless additional fuel is added by Dispatcher); always have aircraft landing with fuel low lights on. There also is no consideration when landing at busier airports such as ORD; where vectors can burn an additional 1k LBS or more; and there is no fuel left for a go-around without declaring emergency fuel.  I would suggest having fuel plans more consistent with actual flight conditions and scenarios. Have dispatchers actually review the flight plan they send out; especially taking into consideration fuel loads vs. altitude and ride conditions. Raise the FOB minimums so captains don't have to keep calling for additional fuel. Consider go-around fuel burn since it is a normal procedure.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain comments about Dispatch fuel planning methodology which does not consider real world factors; such as vectors; go-arounds; cruise altitude assignments; when dispatch fuel loads are calculated resulting in aircraft landing with FUEL LOW lights illuminated.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D SMO
ATC / advisory: Tower SMO
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I have had two near misses in the Santa Monica; CA (SMO) Airspace within a two week period. I have contacted the appropriate Air Traffic Control managers and have not been satisfied that appropriate steps have been taken in the interest of safety. In the first near miss the Controller was asked by myself if he was aware that there was another helicopter northbound along the shore after I had been cleared for my southbound shoreline transition and the reply was no. According to the tapes not only should the Controller have been aware; he had just previously cleared the other aircraft for a northbound transition. This happened several weeks later again with a different Controller in the same airspace at the same location when the Controller did not respond to me when I asked if he was aware there was another helicopter at the pier after a near miss. I asked; several minutes later; to please clarify if he was aware of the other aircraft. The Controller then apologized and told me he had cleared another helicopter to work the pier and forgot to advise me. Both the Supervisor and the Manager of SMO Tower are now claiming that the Santa Monica Pier is not even in their Class D airspace. After reviewing charts the Santa Monica Pier now and has always resided well within the Class D. I believe we have a very dangerous situation when the SMO Tower Manager and the Supervisor don't even know the boundaries of the airspace that they are controlling. After 25 years of flying in this area; the Air Traffic Control System is not getting better but is degrading at an exponential rate and I feel the need for intervention.




Synopsis: A helicopter operating in the vicinity of the Santa Monica pier in contact with SMO ATCT experienced a NMAC with another helicopter on two occasions.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABE.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ABE
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We were conducting Aircraft X at night into ABE; vectored from the north; and then given a clearance for a Visual Approach. As always; we had an approach set up; ILS 24; and while descending from the north side of the airport from 3;000 feet; the vectored altitude; to 2;400 feet; at an altitude of about 2;650 feet we received a one time (only 1) 'Terrain' warning from the TAWS (Terrain Alert Warning System); while descending very gently at about 300 feet per minute. We leveled off for a moment; there was no other terrain warning and never a 'Terrain; Pull Up' command; then as we intercepted the final; we continued to the 2;400 feet glideslope intercept altitude. There was a ridgeline north of the ILS course; which we had briefed on; but it did not show an altitude greater than 1;000 feet; so we did not think it would be a problem to start a shallow descent from 3;000 to 2;400 feet; especially at a shallow rate. This is a potential problem at night; as there are no obstacle lights on the ridge line; so I believe Approach should simply provide vectors to the ILS approach instead of just giving a 'visual.'  A little more work for ATC but a safer way of operating. Caused by ATC clearing crew to do a night visual instead of providing vectors; knowing that there are unmarked; unlit; terrain ridge lines to the north of the airport. Also caused by crew not requesting full vectors to the ILS at night. Most ATC facilities in small airports don't want to work that hard. Suggest that crews start asking ATC at small airports to provide vectors to the Approach being used to back up the Visual when in night VMC conditions; as a means to improve the level of safety; even if it means that ATC might have to work a bit more.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain descending on a Visual Approach to ABE reported they received a Terrain Alert.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EFHK.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: This was my first trip into Helsinki and I felt well prepared. I briefed we would clear Runway 22L at the preferred taxiway ZJ; with a backup of ZH which are both approved per the airport briefing pages. On rollout Tower twice said to clear next high speed at ZJ. A taxiway sign adjacent to high speed we exited said ZJ with an arrow and both non flying Pilots familiar with Helsinki told me this was the turnoff. Upon clearing it was apparent the sign for ZJ was indeed the next high speed very near our present taxiway which was in fact ZH also an approved taxiway. We informed Tower who cleared us to enter Ramp via VH. No traffic was present and we used an approved taxiway. In fact there was no traffic at all in the area and as this was one of two 'preferred' taxiways; probably a non event. However I take great lengths to ensure total compliance. Again noting the signage For ZJ was right on the taxiway we actually exited; which was ZH.The confusion occurred on rollout as Tower issued clearing instructions while we were stopping. The signage is a little confusing as ZJ sign is just past but right adjacent to ZH. Not something I miss; and both non flying pilots were indicating strongly I was taking the correct taxiway. I need to remain vigilant.  It is important to note Tower issuing instructions still at speed on rollout does add to workload beyond aircraft control. A better option is to issue turnoff instructions on contact prior to Landing.




Synopsis: An airline crew Captain advised the signs identifying high speed exits ZH and ZJ from Runway 22L at EFHK are misplaced and easily confused.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Detected dirty sock odor upon initial descent to ZZZ. Odor was also present in the cabin and described as very strong by the flight attendants. First Officer and I donned oxygen masks; assigned pilot flying and accomplished the quick action items. I notified the Dispatcher of our situation. The flight attendants called and said it was getting much worse in the cabin. I proceeded to the appropriate QRH checklist but did not have time to complete it. After landing; we taxied to our assigned gate. There was a delay getting the aircraft parked. Upon arrival passengers were notified that paramedics were available for anyone not feeling well. I called Dispatch to discuss the event. We called medical to evaluate our condition and they advised us not to fly at that point and to consider getting medical attention for our symptoms. The First Officer and I proceeded to the medical clinic in the airport where we were advised to go to the hospital to have a blood test done and for evaluation. The flight attendants had also gone to the hospital. When our blood tests came back; one flight attendant was found to have high carbon monoxide levels. He remained at the hospital for treatment and the rest of the crew was released. [Airbus] bleed air is susceptible to contamination. We should not have a parking delay. Getting everyone out of a hazardous environment as quickly as possible should be the focus for everyone. Both the First Officer and I noted that the O2 mask goggles were scratched and difficult to see through. Also; the Captain's O2 cord was quite tangled and caused unnecessary distraction. The checklist is cumbersome and too long. A checklist just for that type of fumes which isolates the offending pack as soon as possible may have limited everyone's exposure and prevented the ill effects the crew experienced.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported increasingly strong 'dirty socks' odor on initial descent for landing. Entire flight crew were administered medical evaluation for health issues.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JAN.Airport, MS
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground JAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Lighting on the ramp at JAN isn't just inadequate it's completely absent. There is no ramp lighting at all. Parking center line is impossible to see. I imagine doing a walkaround is dangerous for a Pilot due to lack of lighting and potential tripping hazards. Ramp Personnel explained to me that they have been begging the airport for lighting improvements since the station was reopened.  It needs addressed immediately.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported lack of lighting at JAN airport ramp area.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; 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
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cleared for takeoff on the RNAV SID. The initial climb out; after contacting departure; ATC asked if we were flying the departure procedure. As I replied yes; I quickly realized we had lost our fixes on the legs page and had failed to complete the SID turn at 540 ft. I immediately advised that we were unable RNAV and requested a vector. They gave us a heading. Eventually they asked if we could proceed direct to fixes on the SID. After unsuccessfully attempting to enter any fixes on the legs page; both FMC's displayed 'Standby; Reset' message. After a few minutes; the message went away and I was able to change FMC pages and saw that the route page had dropped out. After entering the data back into the Route Page; we were able to navigate via the SID. Advised ATC that our FMC navigation was back up and we were able to proceed. No further issues. Upon landing at destination; advised Maintenance and on-duty tech about our write up as to the route dropping from FMC's after takeoff.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a temporary dual FMS failure on departure.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying at 5000 feet MSL. I was being vectored between ZZZ and ZZZ1. I was about 10 miles west of ZZZ2 when out of the corner of my eye; approximately at my 2:00; I started to see a pair of wings that were very quickly growing in my windshield. Within a second; the only thing I could see was a glider out my windshield. I had to take an evasive maneuver by disengaging the autopilot; climbing and turning to the north. It did not appear that the glider had seen me. I told the Controller what had happened and that an evasive maneuver had occurred. The Controller was polite and professional. They mentioned they had a primary target a bit to my north; but that was another glider; which I had a visual on. Neither glider was showing on my traffic page on my GPS; but this is understandable if they do not have electrical systems; and thus no transponders. The Controller gave me a vector further to the south; I assume to get me further and more quickly away from the glider port that is near ZZZ2. Made a practice approach into ZZZ1 with no further incidents.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported an NMAC with a glider.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was attempting a landing at ZZZ; Runway XX; at approximately XA:45 in a 1976 Cessna 172M with a 160 hp Lycoming engine. I was the sole occupant. It was a hot day and density altitude was about 4;950 ft. at the time. As I flared for touchdown over Runway XX; the wings lost their lift in the thin air and heat emanating from surface and the plane dropped 5+ feet causing it bounce even higher due to the spring steel landing gear. At first I tried to salvage the landing on the amount of runway I had left but after a successive bounce and drop it was clear that I was experiencing a severe oscillating (porpoising/bouncing) effect that would not end well for me or the airplane. Coming off that bounce I then applied full power for a go-around. On the subsequent landing I held the nose up as long as possible after the mains touched down. The nose wheel was indeed flat but I was able to taxi from the runway and exit the aircraft. There was no prop strike but apparently the bounce(s) left a wrinkle in the firewall. The airplane was subsequently flown; repositioned; by a pilot/mechanic to ZZZ1 and is awaiting repair at an airframe repair shop there. I was not hurt in this incident.




Synopsis: Pilot reported the high ambient temperature during landing degraded aircraft performance and caused a landing mishap requiring repairs.