elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: Super King Air 300
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C BUR
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [After departure;] just before hand off to SoCal; the Air Data Computer failed (airspeed went to zero). I switched over to SoCal and started trying to figure out the problem (air data failure OR airspeed indicator failure). At this time I was flying on the Copilot's airspeed indicator and altimeter while comparing other air data computer instruments to determine what had failed. I did not want to connect the autopilot to any Air Data instruments until I had determined what was accurate and valid. It appeared the heading information was accurate so the autopilot was connected in the heading and attitude (pitch) mode. Then I did determine that the altitude information was correct but went through the SoCal assigned altitude before I connected the autopilot in the altitude hold mode. I was able to reset the air data computer and the rest of the flight was normal.Having an airspeed failure in the first one thousand feet of a departure at night in scattered cloud conditions is distracting and challenging. The extra workload caused me to go through my assigned level off altitude.




Synopsis: BE30 pilot reported overshooting assigned altitude because of an air data computer failure shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PWK.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PWK
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During engine run-up at the Runway 24 hold short line and parallel to the runway; an apparently fouled spark plug caused engine roughness on one magneto. I requested a return to the tie-down area; roughly 100 yards behind me on Taxiway Bravo. The Tower Controller responded 'OK' which I interpreted to mean that I could return. I did a U-turn on the taxiway which crossed the hold-short line by roughly 7 or 8 feet; but without any incursion onto the runway. The Controller advised me of a 'possible runway incursion' and then cleared me back to the tie-down area. Despite the fact that I thought the turn would remain clear of the hold-short line; I should have waited for more specific instructions; 'OK' is apparently not a clearance. There was no other departing traffic ahead of or behind me and none landing; so safety was not compromised.




Synopsis: Small Aircraft Pilot reported misunderstanding ATC taxi response resulted in taxiway and runway incursions.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While signing on duty yesterday I got a heads up from dayshift Dispatcher the B757 enroute to SNA had a brake on MEL and landing numbers were fine. He also told me he looked at departure numbers out of SNA and they too looked OK. I looked at the numbers and saw we were OK but my own personal alarm bells were going off due to the brake inoperative and the very short runway. I sent this message to the on Duty Manager.'I have not taken turnover yet but was told my SNA bird will have a brake inoperative. I ran through the numbers and they look alright but I just want to throw this out there while we have time to think about it.'The Manager replied; 'Yes; we looked at the payload history coming out of SNA and they have not been over 44K the past two weeks. We are aware that we could take a hit if they are really high on payload tonight. Do you think if they are under 50K we will be good?'[Later] 'The numbers were OK but I'm operating off what is probably the shortest operational runway in the entire system and have a brake inoperative! There is a layer of safety peeled away with this condition. Yes; I can do it but the unknowns that I have to think about are jumping at me with this. I'd be fine off a longer runway but my 'proceed with caution' alarm is going off. Perhaps we should take that plane [elsewhere] to maintain that added layer of safety...runway at SNA is [just] 5;700 FT!'We talk about safety in training and the 'first link in the chain' and trying to recognize it. Seems yesterday we were in the same old mode ('can we do it?') (yes) '(then lets do it!'). Besides FAR's and company procedures I dispatch by a simple three rule process: First; is it legal? Next; is it safe? And finally; is it smart? This operation fell short on item three with me!As a result I suggest that; to ensure that added layer of safety does not get taken away; we ought to look at a policy of no dispatch with a brake inoperative to a runway less than 6;500 to 7;000 FT.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher addressed his concerns about dispatching a B757 to the short runway at SNA with an MEL'd brake.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was pilot flying and did not see anything. The First Officer thought that she saw a drone on short final.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported the First Officer observed a UAV on short final to JFK.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SRQ.Tower, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SRQ
ATC / advisory: Tower SRQ
Second aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on the visual short final for Runway 32 into SRQ and were told to 'sidestep right go around please' followed by a panic 'RIGHT TURN CLIMB NOW'. This call was given by a different controller than the one who cleared us to land and had heard Aircraft Y state he was going around. As we initiated the miss I picked up Aircraft Y and did what we had to do avoid a collision. I'm sure it looked closer from the angle that Tower viewed it. I couldn't bank very steep as I was low and slow and didn't want to put the plane into an accelerated stall so we adequately banked right and began our climb. A lot of traffic on our TCAS so we were careful not to climb too aggressively once we knew we would clear Aircraft Y. We were not given a heading after the go around and were handed off to Departure. Departure was not briefed on the hand off and thought we were picking up our next leg to HOU which was already filed; so after some confusion and explaining; he was able to vector us back around to SRQ for an uneventful landing on [Runway] 32. I spoke to Tower after the fact on the phone and they stated that an instructor stepped in and didn't realize Aircraft Y was going around when we were told to do so also. The whole mess started due to a training aircraft not clearing Runway 22; and stopping in the intersection of [Runway] 32.




Synopsis: Lear 45 Captain reported receiving instructions from ATC to go around at the same time as another aircraft; resulting in a NMAC.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FAT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C FAT
ATC / advisory: Tower FAT
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We departed on the Yosemite 1 departure. ATC gave us a heading and cleared us to FRAME intersection when able. We entered FRAME into the FMS and executed that entry. The aircraft appeared to turn toward the waypoint however ATC asked us if we were turning toward FRAME yet. At that point it appeared the GPS had lost position and we declared a lost signal to ATC and asked for vectors. We were not able to regain accuracy with the GPS and navigated on vectors and VOR tracking for the remainder of the trip.Perhaps recognition of the issue before departure [would have mitigated this issue] had it become evident.


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


Synopsis: CRJ flight crew reported a track deviation resulted when they lost their GPS departing FAT airport.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GTU.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D GTU
ATC / advisory: Tower GTU
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I was being given an IFR takeoff clearance for runway 18; a small aircraft performed a touch and go on runway 18 in front of me. ATC informed me that the plane that just took off was remaining in left closed traffic; cleared me for takeoff and instructed me to turn left to a heading of 100 degrees after takeoff and maintain 3000 feet. I copied the clearance; slowly took the runway; did a final check and began my takeoff roll. I did not see the pattern traffic on rollout and continued my climb on runway heading. At about 500 feet AGL I still hadn't seen the traffic but heard them on the radio request a short approach with full stop. Given that they took off well ahead of me; and that they were communicating their landing request; I assumed that they were around mid-field on left downwind and began my left turn; looking for them in that direction. Shortly after turning left; my TIS-B alerted me to traffic 500 feet above me at about 2 o'clock. Knowing the traffic pattern altitude; I stopped my climb; leveled; sighted the traffic to my right and held at about 1500 MSL as they passed in front of me about 200 feet above. I kept the traffic in sight as it passed; maintaining a safe distance below it. Shortly after passing; the other pilot radioed the tower noting the closeness of our planes.This incident highlighted to me the importance of maintaining visual separation from pattern traffic at all times. It also helped to drive home the unspoken intent of ATC informing pilots of the intended actions of other traffic. This isn't merely for information but is a warning to pilots to keep the traffic in sight at all times and maintain visual separation. Perhaps it would help clarify the intent if ATC reminded pilots to maintain visual separation each time that they say something like; 'the traffic ahead of you is remaining in left closed traffic.' That would help to keep the emphasis fresh during the takeoff sequence when so many other things are competing for the pilot's attention.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported an NMAC with another aircraft in the traffic pattern during an IFR departure.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was taking a short trip to the coast from PAO with a brand new Garmin Navigation database update into a brand new Class B change for the SFO area. The new Garmin update included the new Class B inromation. The GPS showed me that the base of the Class B changed from 4000 to 8000 not to far from OSI VOR. This was a change; since it had been a shift from 4000 to 6000. I was briefly over 6000 before descending. When I returned; I double checked the new chart and found that the GPS data was wrong--the base was 6000 not 8000. I later checked with the also brand new database in the Garmin Receiver in my other airplane. It also showed incorrect information as to the base of the Class B in that same area. It also showed 8000 instead of 6000.Bottom line is that I relied on the newly downloaded database; which was supposed to accurately conform to the new changes in the Class B. Although the new database in both airplanes seemed to conform to the many changes; it was inaccurate as to this area. This occurred only 2 days after the Class B changes; so I am planning on informing Garmin of their error. Both airplanes; with 2 separate Garmin products; both with 2 new Garmin database downloads were consistent but wrong.

Callback: Reporter received confirmation from manufacturer acknowledging a database error.



Synopsis: GA pilot reported the Garmin Navigation database was incorrect referencing the new SFO Class B airspace.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Taxiway; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At the final approach course 25R; when I have landed touched down on the Runway 25R; I reduced my power to idle; retracted flaps; normal brake and back pressure on the yoke to show down the aircraft. Once I have slowed down the aircraft; I turned right to Taxiway Delta to exit the Runway 25R; I stepped on right rudder and applied normal brake so the plane could turn right. The plane did initially turned to the right; but at that particular moment the brake was not function well as well as the plane did not turn; the aircraft did not either stop or turn;  therefore the plane went off the taxiway 45 degrees hit the taxi light and destination sign; causing propeller strike and left wing damaged.




Synopsis: A PA-28 brake system malfunctioned after landing preventing the pilot from steering or stopping so he exited the Runway at a 45 degree angle hitting a taxi light and an airport sign; this caused propeller and left wing damage.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While inflight from ZZZ to ZZZZ; we experienced an aircraft issue. Luckily the issue didn't require an emergency descent with an immediate landing. The Captain and I quickly realized that we only had Jeppesen terminal charts for destination and alternate airports as the company took away all Jeppesen charts outside of the USA in the Jeppesen FD app in the company tablet after COVID-19 started in what we assume was to save money. This is a serious issue that could result in an aircraft accident in an emergency or non emergency if the flight crew is unable to land the aircraft at the selected airports in Jeppesen before departure. We cannot make changes to the Jeppesen selections enroute.The company needs to immediately restore Jeppesen FD app terminal chart subscriptions to all countries we fly to on a regular basis; so that we have all available information for safety of flight. We shouldn't ever have to fully rely on a foreign ATC to get us down safely because we could lose communications and thus would be flying blind. Flying without the required charts may be a violation of FAA; ICAO and foreign countries we are flying into or required by an overflight permit. This is a HUGE safety issue that could cause loss of life and loss of equipment resulting in litigation that would be more costly than paying for the subscriptions.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an aircraft issue during cruise resulted in a diversion. First Officer stated they did not have the correct charts onboard the aircraft due to possible cost saving measures by the airline during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 201210
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
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The Captain of one of my flights called and said that the filed altitude I gave him was below the MEA and they could not fly this route. I took a look at the chart and sure enough it was. The computer software automatically picks the default route and altitude. Due to work load and trusting this new system; I did not look at the filed route and cruise altitude since it was a short flight. I agreed with the Captain and amended the release appropriately. The Captain was satisfied and flight was on time.The computer software should have an error checker to prevent this. Also; with so many releases being generated in the morning; one simple factor--like winds aloft or payload issues--puts a kink in your train of thought. The feeling of getting behind puts a lot of pressure in your mind.




Synopsis: The Captain of an air carrier flight advised the Dispatcher that the altitude selected by the company's new dispatch computer software was below the MEA for the filed route. The Reporter confirmed the discovery and they agreed to an appropriate altitude.