elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Assigned DRLLR 5 arrival into IAH. We were planning 26R RNAV Y. We were cleared to descend via the DRLLR 5. 6000 was set in altitude window and aircraft was in LNAV/VNAV. Runway was not assigned so approaching SKLER; Captain queried ATC. ATC advised ILS 26R. Crew discussed ensuring proceeding straight after SKLER. Captain as Pilot Monitoring began to change the approach in the FMC; in the process the aircraft leveled off at 7000; rather continuing the decent to 6000. We recognize this a couple miles from SKLER but before we were able to notify ATC that we might be high at SKLER; ATC assigned us a descent to 5000. We proceeded to descend to the new altitude and land uneventfully.




Synopsis: First Officer reported leveling off high while they attempted to reprogram the FMC following a late runway assignment on the DRLLR FIVE STAR into IAH.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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 Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On Aircraft X to ZZZ at around XA:00 local time in our descent we received an EGPWS 'Terrain terrain; pull up pull up'. From 3;500 ft. on downwind CA (Captain) [Name] asked me to bug 2;500 ft. on the altitude knob. As we were descending I had mentioned to him that it looked like there may be rising terrain ahead of us. Continuing down to 2;500 ft. shortly after we were given the EGPWS audio to pull up. CA [Name] then clicked auto pilot off; added power and pitched up clearing any terrain that lie below us. The rest of the approach proceeded with no other complications. We had debriefed after engine shutdown at the gate. Looking forward I feel that my actions in this case would be to maybe be more assertive with my thoughts on the possible rising terrain in front of us and suggest to wait to descend until a base turn.




Synopsis: First Officer reported a lack of assertiveness caused the flying pilot to descend in rising terrain; triggering EGPWS warnings and an autopilot disconnect to regain altitude.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out; shortly after flap retraction we received an amber CAS alert - UNCMDED STAB. Climb was continued to a safe altitude to allow checklist reference and procedure. At 7;800 feet there was a temporary CAS message of a PYLON HOT L message. At that point we declared an emergency and returned via radar vectors and landed without incident. During the final phase of our visual approach the CAS message cleared. The aircraft is currently being evaluated by Gulfstream technicians.


Second narrative: No additional information was provided by the secondary narrative.


Synopsis: A Gulfstream V flight crew returned to their departure airport following receipt of UNCOMED STAB and PYLON HOT L CAS warnings.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on a visual approach; we experienced a total loss of Hydraulic power. On the downwind leg the landing gear was lowered and immediately after all landing gear had normal down indications (three green lights) the amber HYDRAULIC VOLUME LOW CAS message appeared and the hydraulic fluid quantity indicated a low condition of only 90 cubic inches. The downwind leg was extended and the emergency checklist was accomplished. It was determined that a safe landing could be made and the landing was executed with no incident and emergency braking was applied to stop the aircraft. This was an unforeseen and unavoidable rare system failure. Our training proved effective and resulted in the safe completion of this event.


Second narrative: Hydraulic Volume Low CAS message illuminated on a left downwind after gear was selected down. Positive ID of gear down was established with 3 illuminated green lights and throttle/flap position. Extended downwind leg to run appropriate checklist. Landed successful.


Synopsis: CE680 flight crew experiences a hydraulic failure after the landing gear is extended during a visual approach. After landing emergency braking is used to stop the aircraft.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D BFI
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: During North flow; I was working Arrivals. Aircraft X was on vectors for the ILS approach. After issuing Aircraft X his ILS approach clearance I scanned and noticed a VFR target climbing southbound. I issued traffic; but Aircraft X did not have the aircraft in sight. The target appeared to be continuing towards Aircraft X and started climbing; so I elected to cancel Aircraft X's approach clearance and issued a climb and turn to the East to avoid the traffic. I subsequently vectored Aircraft X back around and onto the approach.My previous reports involved the proximity of VFR targets to BFI arrivals when our airspace is in a South Flow. This report is a perfect example of the fact that this problem also exists when our airspace switches to a North Flow. The timing of this report is also a perfect example of how; even in a North Flow; this problem is continuous and always present.Something needs to change. The VFR aircraft are transiting a very narrow; busy corridor of airspace and are doing so without any communication with ATC. It is simply unsafe. The VFR aircraft in this area at the very least need to be in communication with ATC so that we can assign; as necessary; altitude restrictions ensuring the safety of all the aircraft involved. The solutions are not hard and while they are potentially more restrictive to VFR aircraft the bottom line is that what happens day in and day out in that airspace as it exists and operates now will eventually result in a very bad accident.




Synopsis: S46 Controller reported vectoring an aircraft off of an ILS in order to avoid conflicting unidentified VFR traffic.
Date: 201309
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X; wad descended to 3;000 FT and was slowed to 170 KTS and issued traffic to follow at 12 o'clock and 4 miles a B737 descending out of 2;000 FT; the pilot of Aircraft X readback; 'traffic in sight descending to 2;000 FT.' I held back the visual approach clearance knowing the aircraft had not passed the obstruction ahead who's MVA was 3;000 FT. I observed the aircraft descending through 2;300 FT and issued a low altitude alert and an immediate climb to 3;000 FT. The aircraft saw the obstruction and climbed back up to 3;000 FT. I would not have told him the altitude of the traffic; if I thought it would have confused the pilot into thinking that was his altitude.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a below MVA event when an IFR aircraft was issued the latitude of traffic and interpreted same as an assigned altitude starting a descent.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Mustang (P51)
Operator: Other Other
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Reporter organization: Other Other
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were returning from a local flight. We were using Runway XXL & R which is not our normal pattern. Therefore; instead of flying closer to the airport; we were maneuvering to a XX landing pattern. We had called the tower 15 miles Southeast to obtain a clearance to enter the D space. We were given a squawk code and told by the tower operator we were observed now at 8 miles Southeast and told to 'fly present heading to avoid traffic'. We were doing so and a minute or two later saw what appeared to be Aircraft Y at our 12:00 position lightly lower and noticed a rapid close rate. He initiated a rapid turn to his left; east. We turned rapidly to our left; west; and avoided contact. The tower called at about that time and instructed us to dive immediately. It was a close call. The tower asked me to call him after we landed. We discussed the event from the point at which he gave us the beacon code. I am not sure if he was talking to Aircraft Y traffic or not. We were able to see and avoid the traffic so it worked out. The operator and I agreed we were closer than we would have liked to be.




Synopsis: P51 pilot reported a NMAC enroute to the airport.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SDL.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 300
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; 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: During descent into SDL; we were under the control of Phoenix approach on vectors. We were given a heading of 040 and descent to 6;000. We were advised of a Cessna flying VFR under the control of approach and that it was on a converging course. The plane was told to level at 5;500 feet. At this time the autopilot was on and I was looking at the TCAS and outside while the pilot flying was looking outside and monitoring the autopilot. The Cessna did not level at 5;500 and continued to climb. TCAS promptly gave a traffic advisory followed by a resolution advisory which required us to descend from 6;000 feet and ended up at 5;200 when we were given a 'clear of conflict' advisory. In the process I told approach we were responding to an RA. After leveling at 5;200 I asked what altitude they would like us to maintain (as it was time to descend). We were then cleared direct to the field; maintain 5;000; and contact another approach frequency. We continued to destination without any other issues. The Cessna was very close and I never saw the aircraft until it was within 100 feet horizontally at our altitude. I saw the aircraft when responding to the descend RA. Without TCAS we may have had a different outcome. The Cessna blew the clearance; not the controller.




Synopsis: Phenom 300 Captain experienced a TCAS RA and NMAC at 6000 feet during vectors for approach. A VFR Cessna climbing to 5500 feet with the same Controller had continued to climb resulting in evasive action and a NMAC.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Data Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This is the third of the last six aircraft that I've flown to exhibit this fault. If the FMC generated Gross Weight is deleted from the ACARS Takeoff Date Request Page during preflight; for example; fueling not complete; to receive Planned Takeoff Data Message; then the FMC generated Gross Weight (the actual aircraft weight after final zero fuel weight is uplinked) never repopulates to the ACARS Takeoff Data Request page. This causes the final Takeoff Data uplinked to be the sum of final ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight) and Planned Takeoff Fuel; a number which; in my experience; seldom if ever is the actual aircraft weight at takeoff. On this flight the FMC generated Gross Weight after final ZFW uplink was 629.4. The ACARS Takeoff Data Request page returned performance numbers for a weight of 627.7 (the sum of the final ZFW and OFP planned takeoff fuel. The actual aircraft weight at throttle advance was 628.4. Had we not caught this error; we would have departed using invalid performance data.When we manually entered the FMC generated Gross Weight on to the ACARS Takeoff Data Request page; proper performance data resulted but the weight entered was not dynamic. It never changed.Until whatever change was made to these aircraft's software the FMC generated Gross Weight; when available; always populated to the ACARS Takeoff Data Request page and was dynamic. If deleted; the FMC generated Gross Weight would have repopulated the next time you opened the Takeoff Data Request page and it would always reflect current aircraft weight.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported under certain circumstances entering weight data for departure will give inaccurate aircraft weights.
Date: 202108
Location: 3J1.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other unknown
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Glider landing Area is not properly maintained by Airport management. Grass is overgrown and small bushes are [growing]. In the case of a crosswind; a slight wing drop could generate a dangerous Ground-loop both during Aero-Tow and landing phases.




Synopsis: Sail Plane Pilot reported the glider landing area runway at the 3J1 airport is in disrepair. Growing vegetation on runway could be a hazard for landing aircraft.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am a Flight Instructor at a university; upon the start of a new semester we received our new students. I began checking documents and TSA currencies of all my new students. I received my first international student and was new to the restrictions and requirements of the alien TSA. [We use a] program to monitor student currencies and hard stops are placed in the computer to prevent us from flying when anything has expired. When looking in [the system; a student's] alien TSA was not going to expire until the end of [the next month]. Thinking the currency was still valid we went on his first flight in the Instrument course. It was not until after the flight that I realized that the notes within the currency stated the currency was only valid for his prior flight commercial course and that the alien TSA was not valid for the instrument course. I believe the cause of the problem was not being familiar with the alien TSA as much as I should have been as it is my responsibility as a CFI; to prevent a reoccurrence I have educated myself on the alien TSA process and [the university] will not assign any instructor until the student has already gone through the TSA process fully before getting an instructor and starting the new course.




Synopsis: A Flight Instructor reported a misunderstanding with the alien TSA requirements related to an international student beginning an instrument course when only approved for a commercial course.
Date: 201902
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Snow
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: Ramp
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was assigned flight number X to ZZZZ. I have a lot going on that day with bad weather snow wet and slippery condition; I thought I loaded the fifteen (15) bags around the dangerous goods. Not until after pushing the flight load planner notify me of not having the fifteen (15) bags around.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported inadvertently did not load the required 15 bags around the Hazmat cargo.