elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Rain; Cloudy; Windshear; 2
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MSY
ATC / advisory: Tower MSY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach to Runway 11 MSY; I was flying; at about 200 feet AGL we received a momentary windshear warning. I turned off the autopilot and landed uneventfully. On the roll out I asked the Captain if that was a plus or a minus. He said it was a minus. The warning came and went so fast I'm not sure I ever saw it on the screen; I was about to disconnect the autopilot and fully transition to a visual landing. The weather in the area was widespread rain and very windy from the southeast. There was no convective activity. It was very bumpy on the approach and just monitoring the instruments was taxing. When the windshear warning went off I honestly thought it was a gain and not a loss as I had major tunnel vision on flying the airplane. Had I not made that obvious error I would have gone around. A contributing factor to my error in judging the windshear warning was that I had flown over 8 hours that day and was a little spent. I think that if I had briefed windshear escape procedures better I would have been better prepared for a go-around; expected the go-around and thus executed the go-around when the need arose.




Synopsis: CRJ900 First Officer experienced a momentary windshear warning at 200 feet during approach and continued to landing. He cited fatigue and concentration on flying the approach as factors preventing him from initiating a go around.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon reaching FL270 on a demo flight the pilot's side window cracked. The airplane was at its certified ceiling and maximum PSI. I immediately asked for lower and direct back to our departure airport. ATC cleared us direct and to descend to FL240. We were then switched to a new frequency. I was expecting something lower and didn't catch that we were only cleared to 24;000. I was focused on reducing the cabin pressure to prevent the window from coming apart.I started a rapid descent and switched frequencies. I realized when checking on I didn't remember the assigned altitude. We were already lower than FL240. I informed the Controller we had a cracked window and needed lower. ATC cleared us to 6;000 FT. I believe the cause of the deviation was due to not enough attention being paid to ATC while distracted by a potential emergency. I think better communication about our condition with a more specific request would have allowed a lower altitude quicker and prevented the deviation.




Synopsis: Distracted by a cracked cockpit window while at FL270; and anxious to reduce pressurization differential; the pilot of a PA-46 failed to arrest his descent at FL240 as cleared.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This isn't about an error; but more complaint of airspace or VFR procedures. Because this event left me shaky and barely able to talk to give pilot frequency for next controller. Aircraft X was released on a 31L CHISM3 SID off HIO. I was watching a decently fast primary going through the airspace for a bit. It went into the lateral boundaries of HIO so I called to see if they were talking to them to see if inside their airspace and they giving traffic. They said no; no one there inside their airspace. Aircraft X finally tagged up couple miles north of it in their turn and by the time they checked on there was nothing I could do to avoid the target so I told the pilot; just in case maintain 3000 because HIO is about 2700 and they said they don't see it. After hearing there was traffic there and maybe concern with how I said it; the pilot slowed their normally very fast climb off HIO and moments later told me traffic in sight; passed just above us; good call. I could barely talk to send to Hood for higher. I have not been that shaken like that for a long time. Something unknown could have been a disaster if I didn't trust my uneasy feeling.This later just adds to the fire of VFR pilots not paying attention to their surroundings or ignorant or not caring. Our class Charlie is literally a VFR circus around IFR itinerants. There needs to be some way to force pilots to talk to ATC if anywhere near airports known to have dangerous airspace up to at least the initial departure alt 7000 at PDX; 4000 at HIO; TTD; and UAO.




Synopsis: P80 TRACON Controller reported a fast moving VFR aircraft was observed; traffic was issued; and the IFR pilot advised they saw the aircraft which passed just above them.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Other News Gathering
Aircraft component: Tail Rotor Drive Gearbox
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Other Repair Station
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A crew out on a electronic news gathering (eng) flight experienced an in flight illumination of the tail rotor gearbox chip indicator light. A precautionary landing was made at ZZZ. A mechanic was dispatched with the manufacturer's instructions and sufficient oil to flush the gearbox and do the required post check runs. No further problems developed and the aircraft was placed back in service. As I went to the aircraft's historical record cards to check on the gearbox total time and history; I was informed that the serial number did not match the currently installed gearbox; an overhauled gearbox was installed on Date and the one in the aircraft records had been removed.The work order with the gearbox change was sitting on the office administrators desk and had not been reviewed by the Director of Maintenance and myself the Chief Inspector. Each time a gearbox is changed; the manufacturer specifies certain post installation inspections be performed at 2-8 hours; 10; 20 and 30 hours including an oil change after 2 hours and recurring chip plug inspections. These were not done and the aircraft had been returned to service with no follow on maintenance recorded in the aircraft records. This shop has repeatedly just installed components without concern for the required post installation checks. The manufacturer's manuals were not consulted during the gearbox change.[Contributing factors are] Pressure from operations to get the aircraft back in service for the customer closing out work orders on the weekend when no office personnel are on duty. The lack of employees in the records department to review and monitor the work orders for proper completion and ensure procedures are followed.




Synopsis: Helicopter inspector reported the flight crew had a tail rotor gearbox chip light illuminate in flight. Inspector found incorrect records and procedures for the gearbox that resulted in non-compliance in maintenance tasks and logbook entries.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DEN
Second aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My aircraft was traveling east on BS around B44-B46 with aircraft pushed back on my left. During my taxi scan at some point I noticed a ramp vehicle between A concourse and B-concourse in the middle moving northbound.  At the time this was not unusual but my next scan showed the vehicle at a high rate of speed and not decelerating at my 2 o'clock position. I asked my LCA if the guy was slowing down and indeed he was not and it was obvious the vehicle was going to impact us. My LCA started screaming 'watch out watch out' at which point the vehicle was disappearing under our right wing at the same speed. I was already in an evasive turn 10-15 degrees left with more thrust to accelerate to hopefully gain enough separation but with my eyes on the tail of a CRJ-700 so as not to clip him with my left wing. I then turned back right to center line without feeling any impact. We called the FAs and asked if they felt any thing and they said no. At this time We proceeded [to have a] visual inspection by MX before departing. Visual inspection was OK and we departed. Subsequently the city and ramp found the film and the driver. Impact was avoided only due to the driver slamming on his brakes after he disappeared under our wing. An investigation is in progress. Point of note is that I was pretty hyped up and I had to call in to the duty manager that I can not sleep and need to be put on a Fatigue list as I would not be Fit for Duty in the early morning for the remainder of my trip.




Synopsis: B737 Captain experiences a near collision with a ground vehicle during taxi at DEN. A turn by the Captain and hard braking by the vehicle driver averted the collision.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Mustang (C510)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We felt a vibration and saw the both ammeters jumping around on the Garmin G1000 display. Then we saw the right engine oil pressure drop and then X out. We [advised ATC]; I shut the right engine down; and diverted to IAD and landed successfully.




Synopsis: C510 Captain reported experiencing an inflight engine failure.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were] cleared to intercept localizer to Runway 09 at Miami on a heading of approximately 150. At localizer 'capture' aircraft began turn to capture localizer but rolled out on a 124 heading; taking aircraft to the south of course; despite pink bars being centered. We realized we still had the original course of 124 dialed in for the original Runway 12 assignment. I manually flew back to course as First Officer dialed in correct course of 092. Deviation took us about 3/4 mile to the south of course centerline before correction. We intercepted well outside of final approach fix and rest of approach was uneventful. Strict discipline after runway change would have prevented this. Re initiate proper checklist items; especially for runway changes; and pay due diligence to them!




Synopsis: Forgetting to change the localizer course after a runway change resulted in the aircraft not correctly capturing the Runway 09 LOC and a deviation south of course.
Date: 201902
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E TUS
ATC / advisory: TRACON TUS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: IMC conditions in TUS at night with ragged ceilings and rain/snow forced an instrument approach to land. Issued a revised clearance enroute from ABQ center off the field STAR to go direct JOKIM-TUS. Just outside of JOKIM on initial contact with TUS approach; we were given 'upon reaching JOKIM cleared the RNAV Z 29R. There is no 'approach VIA' in the FMGC for that approach; so the only points loaded were SAXIE and ATOGE. FO was the PF; so I loaded VEDTU; it's associated minimum altitude and closed the discontinuity between VEDTU and ATOGE. FO (First Officer) flew a fine procedurally correct approach and was fully configured and stabilized for landing by SAXIE. 2-3 miles outside of SAXIE at 4400 feet; the tower said that we had an 'altitude alert; my min vectoring altitude in your area is 5;000 feet.' We confirmed that we were on a stabilized and established portion of the approach and that the runway was in sight. Flight landed uneventfully after that point.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC during a manually programmed approach to TUS during night instrument conditions.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on Phl App (Jiims Arrival) down wind vector; 4000ft; heading 085; approach just forgot about us; we were behind another aircraft; they were vectored in for landing while we stayed on the heading 085.  Flights that were behind us were now vectored in front of us for approach; we stayed heading 085.  I called approach and asked how much longer on this heading; answer 8 mi.  More flights were now vectored in front of us; we stayed heading 085.  I called again about our sequence; PHL approach response; 'Who are you and where are you?'  We had flown out of there airspace; they had no idea who we were.  We were finally turned around over McGuire.  Not a safe approach.  Extra flying time; may be +20 min. and 60 miles.On the Jiims Arrival.  We were talking to Washington Ctr.  They transferred us to Phl Approach; this was also the final controller; next freq. was the tower.  Normally there is two Approach freq.  Phl Approach followed by Phl final than tower. Communication problems with Approach. Keep the two Approach freqs.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of a ATC facility forgetting about the aircraft they were flying and then flying an extra 60 miles to be able to land.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AVP.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D AVP
ATC / advisory: Tower AVP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We received a terrain warning while descending into AVP on a visual approach to runway 22. Almost simultaneously we also got a low altitude alert from the control tower. We were in visual conditions at the time and descending over the ridge line north north-east of the final approach course. There is a small tower depicted on the approach plate at 2;125 feet. We turned to base just east of that tower and began our descent. I am not sure if it was the descent rate or actual terrain clearance that triggered the GPWS. After the GPWS warning I glanced at the radar altimeter and it was reading 1;050 feet. According to the approach plate; the top of the ridge line is a little above 2;000 feet. The First Officer (FO) accomplished the escape maneuver and the warning ceased after we climbed a few hundred feet. We were able to continue the approach and land uneventfully.I contacted tower after we landed to enquire at the low altitude alert they issued and they said they have a 3 mile radius area protected around the taller 2;744 foot tower that is a bit west of the tower we turned past. He said they knew we were clear of the tower but they are required to issue the warning when it goes off. We also had that tower visually on our downwind.I felt that we had adequate terrain and obstacle clearance throughout the approach. It was a clear night with good visibility. We were set up to intercept final between WEXIN and JULUT and the FO had 2;800 feet set in the altitude window at the time with the autopilot engaged. We had briefed the environment thoroughly en route discussing the towers and the need to stay at 4;000 feet until we were sure we were clear of them.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain reported receiving a terrain warning received during a visual approach at night. The warning was triggered by the uniqueness of surrounding terrain; man-made structures; and the descent rate during approach. The crew executed mild evasive procedures and landed uneventfully.