elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Window Ice/Rain System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending on the arrival we noticed a small amount of smoke coming from the First Officer's windshield heat terminal.  We donned the oxygen masks and established communications with each other.  I turned the windshield heat off immediately and the small amount of smoking stopped simultaneously.  No further indications there was an overheating situation (terminal was not hot; no smoke or odor existed).  The entire event lasted no longer than 5 seconds.




Synopsis: DHC-8-300 Captain notes a small amount of smoke coming from the First Officer's windshield heat terminal and turns it off.  No other problems are reported.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ROA.Airport, VA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ROA
ATC / advisory: TRACON ROA
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: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Terrain warning into ROA Runway 24; visual conditions and cleared for the visual. Was at 5;200 feet and cleared for the visual into 24 coming up from the south. Started descending to be in the valley aiming at HIBAN and to be there roughly 3;700 feet. As I was descending we came across a ridge line to the south. The combined descent coupled with the rapid increase of terrain below us of the ridge line set off a terrain warning. I took off the autopilot; increased power and climbed as required; then recognizing no danger and that the ridge line had passed; re-established the descent to intercept the approach near HIBAN. Rapid terrain rise of the ridge line coupled with my descent into the valley beyond the ridge. Disconnected autopilot; added power; climbed the aircraft. Suggest waiting until over past the ridge line to start descent or to ask for vectors onto the RNAV 24 even during visual conditions.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on a visual approach to ROA.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending from altitude to 15;000 ft SoCal approach advised us we had VFR traffic at [our] 10 o'clock position at 16;500 ft flying left to right. We shallowed out our descent to 500 FPM. We got a TA; then an RA. We followed the Heads up Display guidance and leveled off at 17;000 ft. A business jet crossed just off the nose 500 ft below us. I thought the controller should have vectored one or both of us to a different course instead of hoping we would see each other.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported an airborne conflict with a corporate jet resulting in an RA on arrival into ONT.
Date: 202112
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While descending into IAH on the DRLLR 5 arrival we experienced wake turbulence at DOMNO. The autopilot initiated the desired left turn but at less than 5 degrees of left bank; the aircraft suddenly rolled right to approximately 20 degrees of right bank. The autopilot remained engaged and immediately corrected back to a left turn to the correct course. The short delay in the turn caused us to go approximately 1 mile off course. ATC noticed and asked if we were going direct to ZOEEE. When I reported to them that we had experienced wake turbulence. I initially used the term 'severe'. When they asked me to confirm that it was severe turbulence I corrected it to 'strong but not severe'. It wasn't so much the strength of the turbulence but the sudden nature and the fact that it occurred exactly when we should have been turning left. I doubt anyone in the back of the aircraft even noticed. ATC asked me to call them after landing and provided a phone number. After landing I called and their only question was if there were any injuries. I told them there were none and reiterated that my initial statement of 'severe' was incorrect. The event was actually very mild; just poorly timed. Additionally; I am using the term 'wake' turbulence because it felt like every other wake turbulence encounter I have had; but I don't recall there being an aircraft in front of us on the arrival. We were eventually vectored behind [another aircraft] on final; but I'm not sure what arrival that aircraft came from.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported a wake turbulence encounter descending into IAH resulted in a slight track deviation.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [After takeoff] tower assigned us 330 heading. As I was finishing my after takeoff check list we were switched over to departure control. I heard '250' from pilot flying and same time I heard maintain 8;000 feet from departure control. I turned the heading knob to 250 heading. About a minute later ATC ask what heading we were [on] and ask us to turn 270 heading. That's when I realized pilot flying was asking me for the speed 250.Ask ATC to repeat when [in] doubt. and confirm with the pilot flying also.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported a heading deviation occurred when the pilot not flying misunderstood the pilot flying's request.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Other fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Prior to reporting
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I had been awake for a period of 40 hours and was given a reserve assignment at 2 AM after flying an all night flight the previous evening. I was unable to accept the assignment due to major fatigue. It is amazing to me that a pilot with a regular flying schedule cannot be scheduled for or fly two early morning flights; yet a reserve pilot can be scheduled to fly an all night flight followed by an early assignment the next day and is expected to be adequately rested. This process should be stopped as it is very unsafe not only to the aviation community but to the individual pilot as well.




Synopsis: Unable to obtain adequate rest the previous 40 hours; an air carrier First Officer on reserve refused an early AM assignment due to excessive fatigue. The reporter questioned whether reserve pilots were less protected from such assignments than pilots holding pre-published flight schedules.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We pushed off of the gate and proceeded to Runway XXL. We were cleared to takeoff up to 5000 ft. When the captain called for 'gear up' EICAS message 'LG LEVER DISAG' Warning was presented. At this point we both looked to the gear pins and saw that the gear pins were missing from their respective holders. After cleaning up the aircraft and on a heading we relayed a message to dispatch via ACARS stating that we are returning to the gate due to gear pins still being installed. [The Captain] made the decision that with the current weather conditions that it was safe to return back to Runway XXR (the longest available runway) and also briefed overweight landing procedures. The touchdown was very gentle. When we returned to the gate [the Captain] filled out a logbook entry and spoke to Maintenance Control. The maintenance gentleman did the appropriate inspections before signing off the necessary paperwork and we then left for ZZZ.Go slow; take your time; always double check gear pins.


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


Synopsis: EMB175 flight crew reported the landing gear would not retract because the gear pins were still installed. The flight returned to the departure airport where they were removed and the flight continued on.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Kiowa/Kiowa Warrior/Combat Scout
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My CFI and I were on a short final autorotation to runway 5. We made our radio calls from right downwind; base and final. We did not hear any aircraft on final for runway 5. As we descended on our autorotation approaching the runway; a white Cessna 172 came underneath us heading the same direction and landed on runway 5. We made evasive action to the south of the runway and paralleled the Cessna. We identified the airplane as an airplane owned by the local FBO. We landed at our hangar and made a radio call on the local CTAF if anyone had heard the Cessna make a call for final runway 5. No other aircraft on the field heard a radio call of an airplane on final. We shut down our helicopter and drove to the FBO to make contact with the pilot of the Cessna. The pilot of the Cessna was a student pilot that was returning from a failed checkride at another airport. The student admitted that he had his radio tuned to the wrong CTAF frequency. The student also stated that he did not see our helicopter even though he landed with us less than 100 feet above him on runway 5. It was determined that the student pilot was at fault for failing to monitor proper frequency and for failing to see and avoid during landing phase.




Synopsis: A helicopter pilot; performing an autorotation reported narrowly missing a C172 as it passed under on short final. It was discovered later that the C172 student pilot was returning from a failed check ride and was not using the correct CTAF nor did he ever see the helicopter.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X called for an IFR release off of LMO airport. The facility has advised us that we must issue the ODP (Obstacle Departure Procedure) and an altitude to maintain. The ODP contains a crossing restriction and we still issue an altitude to maintain even though 7110.65 4-3-2 says that ATC cannot. Chapter 5 in the 7110.65 also states that once ATC amends an altitude on an ODP that has a crossing restriction then the ODP is cancelled. This is just one incident on a long list of many others where an aircraft didn't fly the ODP even though the pilot read the ODP verbatim to me on data before he departed. The pilot flew into a higher MVA immediately after departure and this happens on a pretty routine basis. I recommend that the ODPs be changed off of EIK and LMO to not include crossing restriction altitudes. I feel like this would take away some ambiguity from the pilots so that they only have to worry about a lateral ODP and stick with the altitude that is issued by the controller. Just because local SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) states that a controller can do one thing does not mean that pilots know or understand our local procedures.




Synopsis: ATC Trainee reported an aircraft did not comply with the departure procedure and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PVU.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20-A1 Katana
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PVU
ATC / advisory: Tower PVU
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was doing touch and go landings in the traffic pattern.  At midfield right downwind for runway 13 I reported to tower and asked for a touch and go short approach.  He approved and said that there was a helicopter on a 2 mile final that would be terminating to the east.  He did not say I was to follow the helicopter; or that I was #2.  I understood this to mean that I would complete my landing ahead of the helicopter.  I never had or reported that I had the helicopter in sight.  After this instruction I immediately began my base turn for my short approach.  On final I got the helicopter in sight as he came from underneath me by approximately 500 feet and began his departure to the east.




Synopsis: DA20 instructor pilot reported an airborne conflict with a helicopter in the pattern at PVU.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We departed and received a BLEED 2 OVERPRESS caution message. First Officer (FO) was Pilot Flying and I told him he had flight controls and COMM 1. I ran QRH. Caution message did not clear. While initially running QRH FO dialed in a heading and altitude and allowed airspeed to exceed 250 kts and an excessive bank angle. He corrected promptly and I suggested Autopilot on and selected it on.I ran QRH for BLEED 2 OVERPRESS and one engine inoperative approach and landing. We determined it would be an overweight landing. I took the flight controls. On base we got a fuel imbalance caution message and STALL PROT ICE SPEED advisory message. Around the turn to final heading and bank were varying and I got slow. I should have delayed flaps 5 and FO was trimming rudder without telling me. I corrected speed and flew ILS and broke out just inside the FAF. Landing was uneventful.




Synopsis: An EMB-175 Captain reported experiencing a bleed air problem with one engine. They elected to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Military Trainer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was carrying out a visual approach in VFR conditions. I made a standard 45 degree entry to the downwind leg of the standard traffic pattern at pattern altitude; making left traffic for Runway XX; and announcing every turn and transition on the CTAF; according to standard practice. While on short final at approximately 500 feet AGL; another aircraft suddenly appeared in front and above me; cutting me off from behind and above without warning. Simultaneously; another pilot (who turned out to be holding short of the runway) called out; 'aircraft on short final; go around!' I took immediate evasive action to the right; entered the upwind leg; and went around for another approach; which ended uneventfully. I caught up with the pilot of the other aircraft at the fuel station; he was being admonished by the airport manager. He apologized; but said he had never seen me and had neither made nor heard traffic announcements because he lacked a working radio in his aircraft. He also said that due to the age of his aircraft he likes to stay above standard pattern altitude and to make a very short base turn to final to stay close to the runway in the event of engine failure. Compounding this was the considerable height of his cockpit; and its location approximately over the wings; which severely restricted his downward field of vision. Because he was operating high in the pattern; he could not see traffic below him; and turning his wing high for the base turn also obscured any view of other traffic on final. Thankfully a collision was avoided due to my evasive maneuvering. I understand that it may not be a violation of the regulations; but I do not think it is wise or safe to fly at an untowered field without at least monitoring other traffic on the CTAF; and I urge the FAA at a minimum to make monitoring the CTAF a requirement for landing at an untowered field. I also think it is important that all aircraft; regardless of their age or condition; should stick to standard operating procedures and pattern altitude; especially at an untowered field.




Synopsis: SR20 pilot reported a NMAC with an unannounced aircraft at a non-towered airport.