elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PXE.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E A80
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On descent arrival to destination (PXE) ATC indicated my heading to the Initial Approach Fix (IF) ANICU was off by 20 degrees. A vector was provided and I turned that heading. The vector given by ATC for ANICU did not correspond with all 3 NAV sources on board. Further ATC vectors continued a path south of PXE and was in fact direct to 53A. Weather transitioned from IMC to VMC. ATC insisted I was over PXE and my navigation sources and visual showed that we were +/-15 miles south of PXE. I asked for a heading 055 degrees which was what my NAV source indicated as direct to PXE. ATC approved. As I was 3 miles from PXE I advised ATC I had the field (PXE) and was landing and canceling IFR. ATC advised I was about to land at Warner Robins Air Park (5A2). I landed at PXE.




Synopsis: A pilot reported TRACON vectored him away from the initial approach fix at intended destination.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-4
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ground loop.




Synopsis: RV-4 pilot reported losing directional control of the aircraft.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
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; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Realized that I had carb icing and a loss of power. Engine wasn't completely out; but I decided to divert and landed safely. Center was great and very professional. On the ground; the mechanic and I discovered that I had carb icing due to altitude and flight conditions.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot experiences carb icing and loss of power at 10;000 feet and diverts to a suitable airport.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SDF.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Other unknown
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We arrived just before our show time. I confirmed that the aircraft had been fueled the night before and was in the hangar (it was winter and I wanted to avoid frost on the aircraft) and I asked for a bucket to take a fuel sample. My First Officer and I made our way to the hangar and began getting the aircraft ready. I decided to take a fuel sample while he was finishing the preflight. The left tanks; fuel filter; and fuel system low point drains showed clear jet fuel with no contamination. I then went to check the right feeder tank and a large amount of water and cloudy fuel came out of the drain. The right main tank also had a significant amount of contamination but not as much as the feeder tank. I continued to sump the fuel a few more times and it was no longer making a layer; but the fuel was still cloudy. My First Officer had completed the preflight and I made him aware of the fuel contamination and I told him that I'd need to talk to maintenance before flight as I had never seen this much contamination before. I went ahead and had the aircraft pulled out and put on a GPU to warm the cabin before the passengers arrived. While that was happening; I sent the pictures to maintenance. Maintenance directed me to speak with maintenance and that the cloudiness needed to be resolved. I talked with maintenance and they acknowledged the pictures and started working on solutions to see if a maintenance tech could be found. I then checked in with the operations and informed them that the flight may need to be recovered. I then got back in touch with maintenance who said that they had reviewed the pictures and that continued draining of the fuel should cause it to clear up and that it may take several full sumps before it does. I then asked for another bucket and tried again to sump the right tanks. After 2 more sumps on each drain I was able to get clear fuel with no layering. I took pictures of the result and sent them to maintenance and we all agreed the problem had been resolved. I also asked my First Officer if he was comfortable with the result and he agreed. We then continued the flight as normal with only about a 15 min delay.




Synopsis: Pilatus pilot reported discovering contaminated fuel in fuel tank.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Lines; Connectors; Fittings
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
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 Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While cruising we noticed a Hydraulic Low Quantity for System 1 on EICAS. Checked MFD hydraulics page and System 1 was in amber range and falling. Called for QRH and advised company of situation. First Officer ran QRH and notified Company. We dropped the gear early since we were over weight for landing. Hydraulic quantity continued to fall. Engine One Hydraulic fail EICAS message came on 10 minutes later and electric hydraulic pump automatically came on. Pressure in number one system was fluctuating for a second but maintained 2;900 PSI. Company wanted the plane in [an en route airport] and we diverted. [We] notified flight attendant of situation. [We] made a normal landing. Declared emergency after an additional Landing Gear Air Ground fail EICAS message appeared 8 miles from the airport on final approach. Landing gear came down normally and breaking and steering were normal on landing.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain experiences Hydraulic System 1 low quantity in cruise followed by a diversion to an airport suitable to the company.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The flight was on the downwind leg at approximately 6;000 feet for a planned landing on 34L in SEA. We were approximately 6 miles behind a 737 and given a descent to 4;000 feet when we were hit by wake turbulence. It was without any warning and was a couple of very hard vertical jolts. It only lasted 2-3 seconds. The ride up to that point and after the event was smooth. The winds at that altitude were very light.My intention with this [report] is bring to the attention of those who establish separation for wake turbulence my experiences. It is NOT to imply any loss of separation by the controllers but to hopefully have a renewed review of time and distance separation. It seems as though the frequency of wake turbulence has increased in the last couple of years. Once on final approach and the preceding traffic is in sight I can maintain a safe glide path to stay out of the wake. But when on a GPS STAR or vectors it is very difficult to avoid. Not only is an unexpected encounter somewhat unsettling to the crew; it is much more frightening to passengers.I also have a concern that new pilots have had limited exposure to wake turbulence and how to avoid it when able. During operating experience I have been with new pilots on final behind airline aircraft. When I suggest staying slightly high on the glideslope they seem somewhat confused as to why. This offers a teachable moment when we start getting the wake of the preceding aircraft.My ultimate recommendation would be for increased separation by adding increased in trail spacing or allowing us to offset laterally to avoid an encounter. Also; incorporating [additional] emphasis for new hires on avoiding wake turbulence when operating in high density traffic areas.




Synopsis: Dash 8 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to SEA in trail of a B737. Reporter suggested a review of in-trail guidelines.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ASE
ATC / advisory: Tower ASE
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During our visual arrival descent into ASE; the Control Tower requested that we line up with the extended centerline of Runway 15 for the visual approach to aid in separation from opposite direction departing traffic. Crossing the last bit of high terrain; we received a caution obstacle GPWS call out. Shallowed the rate of descent. Received another caution followed by a Pull Up Warning. Initiated climb; all warning annunciations went away immediately as we were clear of all terrain. Confirmed we were clear of terrain and in the valley; stopped climb and continued the visual approach for landing after crew verified clear of all hazards. Estimate of an 8 mile final during the occurrence. Aircraft continued stable approach; uneventful landing ensued.Although stable and fully configured for landing with a clear visible path over the terrain to the runway the unique terrain layout of the area probably made for the GPWS warning to activate.Recommendation to fly published IFR/VFR procedures and not accept what I would now consider to be a non-standard arrival to resolve an IFR aircraft separation issue of an opposite direction aircraft taking off.




Synopsis: Corporate jet Captain reported terrain warning during approach to ASE airport.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Storage System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying along the highway at 1;500 feet AGL with the mountains to my north and the ocean to my south. I took the plane on a personal flight out to Location. I was returning to my home base airport ZZZ and was 5 miles out when the engine started to cough/quit very erratic. It was apparent that I needed to land immediately as the plane would not be able to hold altitude. My landing options at 1;500 feet in this area were limited. The tide was in so there were no beach options along the ocean and the mountains were cliffs down to the road. I landed the aircraft on the highway with the motor still coughing. After safely landing the plane with no damage to aircraft or risk to other traffic on the road I shut down the motor and pushed it off on a shoulder. It appeared to me that I was having a fuel delivery issue and that was causing my motor to choke. I had 12 gallons of fuel in the plane and was operating with 1.25 hours remaining. I sumped the fuel and was unable to find contaminates at the time. I poured 3 each 5 gallon travel bags of fuel into the wings and sumped the fuel again. After 40 minutes of inspection; I started the motor up again; It ran rough for short period of time and then came back to full power and normal operation condition. I departed right after traffic was momentarily stopped on either end and returned to my home airport without further issue. I have scheduled a full mechanical inspection of the fuel tank plumbing system. I suspect the vent caps and/or vent lines for the new fuel tanks are not venting as fast as the motor is sucking fuel when the tanks get down to 12 gallons remaining.This is an experimental aircraft which received a new wing and fuel tank system and I have only flown the new wing for approximately 60 hours. We will also retest each tank to verify usable fuel in each tank and make determination if fuel indicating lines need to be re-placarded for usable. Plane will not be returned to service until root cause has been identified with mechanic.




Synopsis: Experimental aircraft pilot reported engine problems developed during cruise; resulting in an off-airport landing. Pilot suspected that the fuel supply system was not working properly.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared to descend via the DYAMD TWO Arrival Runway 28L/R into SFO; at approximate vicinity of CEDES and FRELY waypoints; ATC advised to expect Quiet Bridge Visual 28R at ARCHI waypoint. Crew was looking up approach plate at this time as it had changed from the anticipated ILS 28R. Weather had improved to VMC.On the STAR ARCHI is to be crossed at 7000 feet. ATC frequency change was given. Next controller cleared aircraft for the Quiet Bridge Visual 28R. Crew followed the arrival procedures of fly heading 260 to intercept 275 inbound course. Crew crossed ARCHI at 7000 instead for the 8000 feet on the Quiet Bridge Visual. ATC advised for future reference; the crossing altitude was 8000 feet and was written in the notes section. Crew acknowledged advice and continued approach and landing. Upon further review; the Jepps approach plate written location to cross ARCHI at 8000 feet is on the side of the plate in a difficult reading location. Suggested change. While the crew understands the importance of ATC and STAR compliance; it would be beneficial for ATC to advise crews of new attitude at ARCHI when given the DYAMD TWO Arrival 28L/R transition to Quiet Bridge Visual 28R into SFO.




Synopsis: CL300 Captain reported crossing ARCHI at 7000 feet per the DYAMD2 arrival to SFO. NCT advised that the crossing altitude at ARCHI should be 8000 feet per the Quiet Bridge Visual 28R and the NOTAM.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed ZZZ just after XA:00 local on a takeoff and landing training flight with an initial student pilot. We departed for ZZZ1 for work in the traffic pattern. As we climbed and approached our cruising altitude of 3;500 feet MSL; we both noticed the engine miss occasionally on a few strokes every minute or so. We both adjusted mixture to see if that smoothed it out without success. Then as we leveled off; I began to smell a gas-like odor. I continued to scan instruments to have an indication of a malfunction. As I was doing this; my low-time student pilot commented that he smelled a gas odor without me soliciting whether he smelled anything. I immediately asked him to turn 180 degrees back towards ZZZ and we would return to the field. As he did; I entered ZZZ into the GPS; pulled up ATIS; and then contacted the Tower roughly 15 miles northeast of the field. I advised the Tower that we had mild and occasional engine roughness and were returning out of precaution. I also let the Controller know that we had encountered an unusual odor. He asked if we needed any assistance and I replied; 'Not at this time.' Shortly thereafter he asked for souls onboard and fuel remaining and offered us a straight in approach to [Runway] XXL. I accepted and we flew a high final and then slipped the aircraft in just in case we lost power and needed to glide. We landed uneventfully and taxied to the ramp.I believe the quick decision was good to return to the aircraft quickly and also to advise ATC of our situation. This allowed them to help us expedite our arrival and understand any challenges that may have suddenly arisen should things have deteriorated. It was a very good learning experience for my student who now has an understanding for how to handle a challenging situation in the air.




Synopsis: PA-28 instructor pilot reported engine was missing and smelled of gas during climbout.  They decided to return to the departure airport and landed safely.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for the RNAV approach and descending on the approach. I took the radar handoff on Aircraft Y from Tower while Aircraft Y was still not a conflict. Aircraft X was at 3;000 feet and the two aircraft were now on a converging course and appeared likely to merge. Aircraft X had a crossing altitude of 1;500 feet on the next fix on the approach. Aircraft Y was climbing out northeast bound. At approximately 1;500 feet I called Tower and told them to turn Aircraft Y or to transfer communications to me. I told Aircraft X to continue present heading and to maintain 3;000 feet.At this point Aircraft Y was at 1;700 feet and I was anticipating them to continue climbing. I did not receive communications with Aircraft Y until after the targets merged and Aircraft Y was across the Aircraft X's final approach course. Where the targets merged Aircraft X should have been below 2;400 feet descending to 1;500 feet for their next crossing restriction. After the targets merged I cleared Aircraft X for the Visual Approach. At this point they were on approximately a seven mile final at 3;000 feet; almost to the fix that they should have been at 1;500 feet. This set them up for a less than stable approach to the runway.I recommend that Tower and TRACON meet to collaborate on a safer and more efficient way to handle VFR departures that are going to cross the OAK finals.




Synopsis: NCT TRACON Controller reported a VFR NORDO aircraft crossed a runway's final approach course with traffic descending on the approach.