elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 50 minutes after departure at FL360 we heard a loud bang and the aircraft shuddered. We looked at all the EICAS (Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System) screens and they appeared normal. We were just handed off to ATC. The Captain then noticed the all the left engine parameters were fluctuating.Somewhere around this time we got a call from the back letting us know about what they heard and felt. The FA's (flight attendants) were concerned as well as passengers. We discussed the situation and decided to get Dispatch involved. I call the back to get the relief pilot back to the cockpit.We all decided that we should divert to [a nearby alternate] as a precaution. I told ATC that we would like to turn around and land. They cleared us back via a left turn. We landed without incident approximately 6;300 lbs over weight.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate airport after experiencing left engine anomalies; including a possible compressor stall.
Date: 201407
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Over the last month or so I have noted Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) beds in very poor condition at various airports. Two that come to mind are the departure end of [Runway] 22L at MDW and [Runway] 4R at LIT.In both cases multiple blocks have collapsed leaving giant openings. At the very least the stopping effectiveness has to be compromised. At the worse; these gaping holes could cause pilots to purposely avoid the bed. Please inventory the integrity of all EMAS beds at the airports we fly to or use as alternates. Once installed; they must be maintained.

Callback: The reporter had done no further research regarding other EMAS locations that might be included in this report.



Synopsis: A pilot reported EMAS beds in poor condition at several airports at which he operates; two of which were Runway 22L at MDW and Runway 4R at LIT.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL340; we received a TCAS Resolution Advisory to climb. The red target displayed was at our altitude and appeared to be on a collision course. We followed the RA and climbed to FL350 and advised ATC. ATC advised us that they had no traffic in the area but that we were near military airspace. After visually assuring that there was no other aircraft nearby; we descended to our assigned altitude and selected TA on the transponder. The false target mirrored our position for a while; then disappeared.I suspect that there was nothing wrong with our equipment but that we encountered military interference/jamming.Since I believe the problem was external; I hope the FAA can coordinate with the military to avoid a recurrence.  However; the TCAS was written up in the aircraft's maintenance log.


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


Synopsis: A MD-80 climbed to FL350 after the TCAS issued a RA CLIMB at FL340 from a target at their altitude which mirrored the aircraft. ATC reported no traffic. A TCAS Null Bus Fault own ship escape was a possible cause.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We encountered some wake turbulence behind an Airbus; that we reported and then requested and received a vector to vacate. In the process of approach (behind that aircraft) we were broken off the 28L visual and given the 28R ILS; which we accepted (greatly increasing our workload - specifically on the account of our discussing the wake turbulence aircraft immediately in front of us and our avoidance techniques thereof). We checked in with what we thought was the Tower; and at this very busy airport on this very busy day; and during the landing roll out did a radio check after re-entering the Tower frequency and were told to contact Ground; which we did; and taxied to the ramp normally. Upon landing neither crew member was able to positively recall acknowledging the landing clearance.


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


Synopsis: G-550 flight crew reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of an Airbus on approach to SFO and a subsequent failure to contact Tower.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RNT.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E S46
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed and subsequently picked up my IFR clearance to RNT from Seattle Center. The clearance was OLM RNT at 16;000 feet. On descent to OLM; I was again cleared direct to OLM direct RNT and given a crossing restriction 10 south of OLM at 10;000 feet.After passing OLM and going direct RNT; I was given vectors and descents to coordinate with traffic. I was eventually given a heading and descent to 2;000 feet. The heading appeared to be a good intercept angle for Runway 34 at RNT. I began to slow from 200 KTS to 120 KTS. At this time the heading I had been given had taken me to the east of centerline to Runway 34 and I was expecting approach to give me a new heading to correct back; as I could see Runway 34. Instead I was given 'cleared for the approach to Runway 31 do no descend below; 1;600 feet until on the localizer.' I was then given a frequency change to contact the tower; it was not the correct frequency for RNT. At this point it began to be very clear to me that approach control thought my landing airport was BFI; not RNT. How or why; I didn't know. Approach control then gave me a heading north and a frequency for RNT; I entered a right downwind for Runway 34 at RNT and landed. On taxi in a RNT ground control gave me a request to call the watch supervisor for approach control and said 'don't let them blame this on you; they keyed in the wrong airport in the computer.' I thanked her and called the supervisor. She explained what happened; took my name and phone number in case there were further questions.In my years of flying I've heard many times about pilots landing at the wrong airport; but never ATC sending you to the wrong airport; especially on an IFR flight plan. As a result I didn't question the clearance I was given; I should have; as this whole exercise could have been avoided. Simply; if you don't understand the clearance; or it doesn't make sense; question it and get a clarification from Center; Approach Control; or Tower.




Synopsis: BE90 pilot reports filing an IFR flight plan to RNT but during descent; Approach assigns a heading and clears him for the approach to Runway 31 at BFI. Approach Control is advised and vectors are received for a right downwind at RNT.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Other Cargo/Freight
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The jumpseater was slow to return to the cockpit. While descending through 10;000ft I cycled the seat belt switch several times and hailed to him over the intercom. The jumpseater had mentioned that he had been on [another aircraft] for a while and I felt like he would be up any second; so I continued the arrival. Once we started to configure; I tried the seatbelt bell and intercom again. I called the tower at approximately 1;000ft and informed the controller that we needed to take a turn in the pattern to get a passenger in their seat. She approved a right 360 and we were still cleared to land. I made a climbing right turn and we raised the gear and raised the flaps to 28. Once we were stable at 2;000 ft AGL; while asking the First officer (FO) to go check on the jumpseater; the doorbell rang and the jumpseater returned to the cockpit. We continued the right turn and re-configured for landing. We were fully stable and re-established on the Loc and Glide slope for our visual approach before 500ft but the FMS had not caught up with us and the FMS speed ball was still in the go around position at approximately 210kts. We bow tied 165kts which was about 10kts above the lower foot. I felt like it was ok to continue and the landing and rollout were uneventful.




Synopsis: Captain of a large turbojet reported an issue with an Observer Crew Member who did not return to their designated seat in time for landing. Captain elected to do a go-around.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared to descend Via the RAVNN3 RNAV STAR inbound to BWI. The pilot flying elected to brief the night time arrival with possible weather issues during descent. Unfortunately we had a 150 KT tailwind and only short mileages between fixes. We made SACCO and FIMBO at the prescribed 16;000. As we approached UDUDE [required 'At or above 14;000'] we had not started further descent; still legal; however the next crossing; REXEE; was 'At 12;000' and only 7.5 NM away. The pilot not flying noticed the problem and brought it to pilot flying's attention. We then requested relief on the crossing and were cleared to simply descend to and maintain the altitude. ATC was surprised and wanted to know what happened. No clearance was actually violated; however intent was not met.We needed to brief the approach earlier and be more aware of descent requirements. We should also have used the available VNAV mode (the aircraft was INS/VNAV equipped).




Synopsis: An MD-80 flight crew descending 'via' the RAVNN RNAV STAR to BWI with strong tailwinds was unable to comply with the 'At 12;000' crossing restriction at REXEE. ATC provided the necessary relief.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: During a training event; my student was learning to judge height above the runway; and the landing went long due to our duration in ground effect. We were asked by Tower to expedite our taxi down the runway and clear [the runway].  During the turn; my foot became entangled in my headset cord. In an effort to manage the aircraft; I pulled my headset plugs from the ports and dislodged my headset on my head. It is a very confined area and the ports are under the center portion of the instrument panel. I made every effort to stop the aircraft prior to the hold short intersection and crossed the hold short line that guards the runway. Factors that affected my performance include a small cockpit environment leading to cord entanglement. Small area that does not favor any ability to clear a runway; and stop the aircraft if the pilot finds them self in any kind of predicament. Faded hold short markings on taxiway. Plan of action is to review this scenario with local instructors. Incorporate this situation into 'real world' training for my students. Renewed priority for 'hotspot' training.




Synopsis: C152 instructor pilot reported their feet became entangled in their headset cord while taxiing and they could not stop the aircraft at the hold short line they were supposed to hold short of.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-500
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower HOU
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We received the standard taxi clearance of [Runway] 12R via Zulu and Echo; hold short of [Runway] 12L; monitor Tower. The Captain stopped the aircraft about ten feet short of the hold line for [Runway] 12L. I observed a light twin on final for [Runway] 12L. The Tower told the twin; 'Go around; aircraft on the runway.' The Captain looked left and said; 'There is no aircraft on the runway.' The Tower then explained; 'The 737 is short of the runway; but our equipment detects him on it so we have to send you around. Company; flight number; you are short of the runway. Our equipment detects you on it.' I responded that we were well behind the line. We were cleared to taxi and take off with no further incident. The whole thing was weird. Obviously; HOU has some faulty equipment.


Second narrative: Cleared to taxi to [Runway] 12R via Zulu and Echo and hold short of [Runway] 12L. We complied with the taxi clearance and we stopped about 10 FT from the [Runway] 12L hold short line. Hobby Tower had to send an aircraft landing [Runway] 12L around because the airport's equipment showed that we had encroached the runway. The Tower Controller acknowledged that he could see they we were indeed holding short of the runway but he was obligated to send the aircraft around because his equipment showed otherwise. He told us that there was no problem with our positioning and then cleared us to cross [Runway] 12L and [Runway] 17. For some reason; the sensors in the taxiway must be positioned improperly and Tower seemed to be aware of this potential false warning. Hobby Airport needs to reposition the sensors in the taxiway so they correctly show an accurate position of the aircraft in order to prevent unnecessary go-arounds.


Synopsis: Air Carrier holding well clear of Runway 12L for departure observed an aircraft on final issued go around instructions by ATC because of an occupied runway alarm.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Had a C172 enroute to SMO maybe 4 miles east of LGB at 4;000. LBG Tower flashed a release for an A320; which I accepted. My plan was to keep the A320 at 3;000 until in front of the slow moving Cessna. LGB Tower called to say the A320 was going to be a couple minutes late on his release because they were getting jammed on final. Swiss cheese hole 1: Now my plan was to turn the Cessna up along the boundary to get out of the way of the A320 when he departed. But; DOWNE Sector called to use the racetrack and descend an aircraft to 5;000 (swiss cheese hole 2). This tied my hands a little on running the Cessna tight to the line. Now my plan was to turn the A320 out to a 250 heading to get divergence from the Cessna. However; when I turned the A320 out there was a VFR aircraft opposite direction at 2;500; which I assumed was descending for LGB; swiss cheese hole 3; but upon rechecking the situation; I noticed the VFR at 2;800. I turned the A320 to a 270 heading and he got an RA from the VFR aircraft. I then climbed the A320 to 6;000 as per the handoff. I think there should be a bit of a redesign on the Bravo Airspace; or a Class Charlie Airspace to cover LGB for this departure as well as the LGB...VTU departure. On my side; once I notice the situation I should have cancelled the release with LGB; or told DOWNE approved with the racetrack and shown my traffic (C172) and requested a point out at 4;000. Also never assume what a VFR aircraft is going to do.




Synopsis: SCT Controller described a conflict event when an IFR release from LGB was delayed and plans to handle a VFR aircraft failed to materialize. The reporter suggested airspace changes that might prevent future occurrences.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compressor Stator/Vane
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The subject aircraft was returned to service after a maintenance inspection was allegedly performed. When I performed my walk around inspection; the damaged stators were not recognizably damaged; but I did take some extra time looking. Shortly after departure the Captain noticed a vibration in the control wheel and asked me to confirm it. At that time I noticed a slower-than-normal airspeed indication. I accepted the controls and radios while he called the Chief Pilot. Collectively; we decided to divert to a nearby airport. Upon landing; the captain performed a full power run up for 15 seconds. The buzzing sound at full power and a vibration in the control wheel were still present and pronounced. After shutdown; I inspected the No. 1 engine with the captain and we discovered unquestionable damage and blood stains which are documented in the photos [provided to the company]. I then climbed up on the right wing for a close inspection and noticed that there was one stator that is questionable.Have maintenance personnel do a thorough inspection and fix any damaged items.


Second narrative: I then proceeded to inspect the No. 1 engine where I discovered unquestionable damage and blood stains which is documented in the photos. Simply stated; better maintenance inspections are required.


Synopsis: Despite the HS-125 having just successfully undergone a maintenance inspection for possible engine damage (for reasons not provided) and returned to service the next assigned flight crew experienced vibrations and buzzing sounds they deemed serious enough to divert for further maintenance.  More acute inspection after landing illuminated one stator potentially damaged on the right engine and unquestionable blood and damage to the left.