elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CNO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ONT; Class D CNO
ATC / advisory: Tower CNO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I took off from Brackett. Approaching Chino I called the tower requesting transition [through their airspace]. I was told stay at 2;000 feet north of the airport; transition approved. This I did; paralleling the Chino east west runway in use; until I was past the airport about a mile; when I turned ESE. Immediately; tower told me I was crossing the inbound final approach course; 'Make immediate turn north.' I complied and in a minute told Tower; 'If I continue I will be in Ontario Class C airspace.' Chino is in a cutout on the edge of Ontario Class C airspace. Tower told me he would tell me when to turn; which he soon did.Had I not turned ESE when I did; I would have been in Ontario's airspace. Tower should have told me 'Stay north until I tell you to turn. Ignore the Class C airspace.'In a phone call to Tower; I was told Ontario is under Chino control; so should have ignored the Ontario airspace since I was talking to Chino. Tower told me my situation was common.Personally; I will avoid the whole situation by requesting transition south. I told this to Chino and they said fine and would see about some changes to north transitions.




Synopsis: Pilot called tower to transition their airspace enroute to destination airport. Pilot turned ESE and was told by the controller to turn north. Pilot complied and then stated he was about to go into another airspace if he continued on the assigned heading. Tower told pilot they would call the turn and to ignore the Class C airspace he was about to enter.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon departing; the gear was raised and the nose gear did not raise for about 60 seconds. During the 60 seconds; it sounded like the gear was struggling to come up; at the time we had a gear unsafe light. It went out; we informed ATC we would be returning to field and that we would need vectors back. After calling the FA; informing passengers; and calling maintenance; we started our return to field. Upon the alternate gear extension; the nose gear did not extend. We went back to the east; got holding instructions; and the Captain called maintenance to work on seeing what we could to do get the nose gear down. After trying to pump the hydraulics (only for mains) he pulled the handle to extend the nose gear again; and the nose gear came down and locked. We proceeded back to the field and landed with no further issues.Not sure why it occurred; but I do know it was an issue in the past on this aircraft (read in logbook). After identifying the problem; we used the emergency checklist and also changed PM/PF so that we could accomplish the checklist appropriately.




Synopsis: Dash-8 First Officer reported returning to the departure airport after experiencing problems with nose gear retraction and extension.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Duke 60
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Instructor; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was giving OJTI. A BE60 departed the airport heading 300 climbing to 2;500. My trainee handed the aircraft off to Radar West then informed the BE60 RADAR contact and issued 124.0 for Radar West about 3 miles northwest of the airport. The BE60 acknowledged. There was a 3;300 MVA 10 miles northwest of the airport. The BE60 never switched over. Radar West Controller and I try to climb the BE60 multiple times once we realized we lost communications. The BE60 flew straight through the 3;300 MVA at 2;500. The BE60 eventually squawked emergency about 10 mile northwest of the airport and began maneuvering and climbing in a large left turn to on course east bound. Then closer to the next airport the aircraft squawked VFR. Eventually; the Radar West Controller was able to contact the BE60 and found out that the aircraft experienced some kind of electrical problem which caused the radios to fail. The pilot chose to continue of the original flight plan and went on their way. The departure heading off the airport in a 1L/1R flow should be a heading which will keep departures south of the 3;300 MVA. I don't think 300 is a good heading even when there aren't any equipment failures.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described an MVA infraction when an IFR aircraft on an assigned heading/altitude experienced electrical problems and failed to respond to ATC instructions; the reporter suggesting changes to initial heading assignments.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute at FL350; we had a LEVEL 3 AIR MANF 3 FAIL and the air system controller automatically shut off the number 3 bleed air valve. We ran the QRH procedure and the alert went away. The QRH procedure directed us to land at nearest suitable airport. We were able to operate the number 3 engine at a reduced power setting and keep the alert from reappearing. We were abeam ZZZZ and nearly overhead ZZZ so after checking the weather; we decided ZZZZ was the better choice. We advised ATC; ran all the normal checklists and flew the ILS to RWY XXR at ZZZZ. We landed uneventfully; taxied clear of the runway and had the Fire Department check out our right wing and around the airplane. They noted everything appeared normal with no visible damage. We taxied in to the ramp and shut down and wrote up the malfunction.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a LEVEL 3 AIR MANF 3 FAIL at FL350 and diverted to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: STS.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground STS
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In preparing for takeoff; we had been instructed to taxi to the run up area for Runways 14/20. In reviewing the airport chart again; that is also the A3 intersection. I had been told to expect Runway 14 for takeoff. The beginning of Runway 14 is north of the run up area. The beginning of Runway 20 is adjacent to the run up area. Both runways can be accessed from the A3 intersection; but not the full length of Runway 14. Taxiing to the beginning of runway 14 takes one across the approach path for runway 20. The signage is confusing. When told to continue my taxi to the hold short line; I missed the A3 intersection and proceeded north to the beginning of the runway. When I realized my error a moment later; I stopped and notified ground control. They told me to continue my taxi to the runway end but advised of a possible pilot deviation and requested I call the tower later.When I spoke to the tower later on the phone; I was told there was no safety issue since there was no traffic for Runway 20 and that; 'it was no big deal.' The controller told me that situation happens 2-3 times a day and they're documenting all instances in order to get the FAA to improve the signage. My takeaway is to be extra vigilant in studying the airport chart prior to taxi and have a clear picture of the route given in the instructions.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported incurring STS Runway 20 approach hold area after leaving the run up area. The reporter did not see the hold-short line protecting the Runway 20 approach path because of its distance from the Runway 14 entry taxiway.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower HNL
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Another Cessna 172 approached the checkpoint for clearance into HNL Bravo airspace after I had been cleared in. They approached from above me and to the south. They were having issues with their transponder I believe and turned to the north and away from the airport to address their transponder and for sequencing. When I caught sight of them above me and to my right I pushed the yoke down to separate us further and continued my approach toward HNL. My lessons learned from this event are: 1. be more proactive on the radio with HCF when a situation like this is identified; second more aggressively search for other aircraft at points of congestion (even above me) to prevent a collision.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports a NMAC with another C172 at a visual reporting point requesting clearance into HNL Class B airspace.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT; Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On final to Runway 28R into SFO we received a low altitude alert from tower. We were approximately 400 feet below the VNAV path. As Pilot Monitoring (PM); I had been distracted by another Aircraft on final for 28L. The Captain (CA) had been concerned about being too high and fast on the FMS bridge visual and I believe through accident use of FLCH and speed intervene; he commanded the Aircraft to go too low (and I failed to monitor the situation properly. I perceived we were low; but thought it was part of his plan; until we received the alert from ATC (about 3 miles out at around 600').




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported receiving a 'low altitude alert' from tower on VNAV approach into SFO.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon our return to the gate into ZZZ; I failed to disarm R1. I haven't worked on the jet in quite a while since being based in ZZZ1; so memory was still working other aircraft type trips. I take responsibility and have since reviewed two videos on arming and disarming doors on the aircraft. This has been a learning lesson. I have also spoken with my Supervisor. I have reviewed the arming and disarming videos through our training department and will also go over procedures before my trips.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported forgetting to disarm the R1 door and cited lack of flying in this specific aircraft type as a contributing factor.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I received a briefing at the sector for R15/16; my first session on the scope since a 4 day stint in Virginia for an airspace project. The Certified Professional Controller (CPC) being relieved told me about Aircraft X being below the Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) around Mt. Katahdin; but I forgot about him until later. Traffic was light. [Sometime later] I noticed that at that Aircraft X would need to climb from 6;000 feet to 7;400 feet prior to entering the Mt. Katahdin MIA block; and would also need to climb prior to entering ZUL's airspace; who's MEA for V352 is 7;800 feet. To alleviate this; I cleared Aircraft X direct VLV; a 0 degree change in heading since that was the next NAVAID along his flight plan; and I believed I would be able to utilize a lower MOCA for his route of flight. Radio coverage is also poor in that area so climbing him would be to my benefit. The Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW) alert triggered immediately since Aircraft X was within 2 minutes or less of penetrating the 7;400 feet MIA block. I read the 4;000 MOCA next to VLV and I believe I incorrectly assumed that MOCA also applied for the route segment Aircraft X was currently on. Thinking I had a safe altitude; I wasn't too concerned about the aircraft being on course with Mt. Katahdin safely off his left side. It should be noted it was a VFR day. Regardless; I could've simply climbed Aircraft X to the MEA of 6;300 and had him report established on V352 again and this would've been a non-event. I failed to think of that at the time; but it should also be noted that the MEA of 6;300 is not listed on the segment of V352 where Aircraft X was on the overhead controller chart. Become more familiar with MOCAs and MEAs for that area as well as the true definition of a MOCA.




Synopsis: A ZBW Controller used MOCA incorrectly for an altitude clearance with an aircraft off airways. The Controller recommends to become more knowledgeable regarding MOCAs ad MEAs.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Aircraft component: Weather Radar
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; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cruising at FL350  night/IMC the flight had encountered and deviated around several areas of convective activity.  The wx radar seemed to be working well.  The gain was in auto and I had adjusted the display brightness to a comfortable level; cockpit flood lights were off at this time  but had been on earlier in the flight.  Five to ten minutes prior to the turbulence we had encountered IMC with a great deal of St. Elmo's fire; but a mostly smooth ride.  As I worked the radar in range and elevation I did notice an area of precip off the nose which barely showed up as green with the radar tilt level.  I discussed this with the pilot monitoring and we did not see a need to alter our course.  At about 15 nm from the return I selected 20 nm scale on the radar and did see a stronger return with a little yellow precip in the middle.  I decided to deviate to the right of course.  The PM coordinated with center; I started the turn and we experienced moderate approaching severe turbulence; very heavy precip and St Elmo's fire.  It lasted for about 30 seconds.  The aircraft gained about 250 ft and airspeed plus and minus 10 kts.  This did not correlate at all what we had seen on the radar previously.  We reported the event to ATC.  There was no other traffic near and they did not seem to have an issue with the altitude.Cause: The radar return prior to the event did not match severity of the turbulence and precip.  This did not show on the radar as a strong return.  I interpreted it as a weak return.  I do not have a good explanation for this.  The radar was in auto gain during this encounter.  I question if the St Elmo's fire prior to this had an affect on the radar.  Next time night IMC I will deviate around any return.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported flying into convective area with moderate to severe turbulence that was not painted by his weather radar.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise at FL390; received Right Pack Overheat/Right Pack Inop Lights. Two minutes into cool down period; received cable altitude alert. Accomplished emergency action procedures; followed by emergency descent to 10;000 [feet]. After level off; right pack reset normally IAW (in accordance with) QRH procedure. Maximum cabin altitude was 12;000 feet. After pack reset; cabin pressure returned to normal. Flight continued to normal landing at ZZZ. Several flight attendants complained about hypoxic symptoms. Paramedics were called to meet upon gate arrival. Suspect event occurred due to overheat/failure of right pack and left pack being unable to maintain cabin altitude.Was informed that this was the third occurrence on this aircraft. This would have been good to know information prior to takeoff and may have allowed the crew to be more alert and prepared for this possibility.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained n[o additional information.]


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported right pack overheat followed by cabin altitude warning in flight.
Date: 201810
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Taxi
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: The recently updated airport moving map makes it very difficult to use anymore during taxi for several reasons. First; the taxiway centerlines are removed which were extremely useful. Second; there is now so much clutter from all the taxiway designators that the chart is just too 'busy'. Finally; the color shading between the taxiways and surrounding surfaces are nearly identical making it very difficult to differentiate between them.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported problems with the recently updated moving map display readability.