elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We were asked to reposition an aircraft. There were many events leading up to a Minimum Fuel Emergency. My original First Officer (FO) called off sick. After a second FO was assigned to the trip we needed to make our way from the terminal to the maintenance hangar. When we arrived at the hangar the aircraft was not ready to fly. During the preflight we found multiple discrepancies. Cracked taxi lights; zero fuel in the left tank; 500 LBS fuel in the right tank. Our oxygen bottle had 130 PSI. The plane was covered with snow and ice. Our original flight plan called for release fuel 7200 with min takeoff fuel 6700. That would allow us 2100 planned arrival fuel. The above discrepancies and the late arrival of fuel put us three hours behind schedule. During this period of time dispatch did an amendment to the release; but failed to inform us of the change. We deiced the plane and departed with 6800 LBS fuel on board. We were calculating fuel throughout the flight. Over our midpoint we calculated we would have enough fuel to land in our destination. To ensure we did not encounter any delays to the airport we [advised low fuel] with Center. However; Center did not pass on to Approach our [situation]. They only informed Approach control we were minimum fuel. There was a military C130 in the pattern. We were given a vector for traffic which we denied and again informed Approach control of [our fuel situation]. At that time the aircraft was vectored away from the runway. We landed with approximately 650 LBS per side. The aircraft was undamaged and no crew members were hurt.Amended release with an increased fuel load was not communicated to the crew. We need better communication between dispatch and aircrew.




Synopsis: Dispatch did not inform an EMB-145 crew about decreased fuel requirement during an extended preflight and the crew had to advise low fuel with ATC because total landing fuel was about 1;300 LBS.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On turn to final from the north on visual approach to Runway XX received a EGPWS alert. The alert was not a full alert. aural warning only. no terrain display or RA indications. Declared my aircraft; disconnected the autopilot and excused a climb to clear any possible terrain. Prior to accepting the visual approach to Runway XX the FO (First Officer) and I discussed and identified any and all possible terrain; obstacles and MSA. When we received the partial alert and after climbing and turning for the airport company 10-7 procedure; we were able to determine visually and from the approach chart that we were safely clear of terrain and were able to continue with a normal approach and landing.Cause  -  Terrain [area].Suggestions - Crews [should] not accept a visual approach unless outside [intersection] (4;000 feet).




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported receiving a partial EGPWS alert during visual approach. Flight crew executed an evasive maneuver; debriefed the event and subsequently completed a safe landing with no issues.
Date: 201809
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bombardier Learjet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C BUR
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We departed Runway 15 from BUR. On the climb out; we encountered wake turbulence from a B-737. We initially remained left of the departure. Upon the initial call to Departure; we were told to turn right to a heading of 210. We complied; and joined the departure procedure with no terrain or traffic conflicts.




Synopsis: Learjet First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence departing BUR in trail of a B737.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Light Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft X was on the BRIXX RNAV arrival into SJC. After BRIXX; Aircraft X started to descend out of 12;000 feet for 7;000 feet. 12;000 feet is the bottom altitude on the BRIXX arrival; not 7;000 feet. I continually have aircraft fly this arrival incorrectly. Pilots see 7;000 feet (which is a MEA altitude) and begin their descent. This is a major problem that my facility is aware of and rumored to be fixing. The unsafe part of all of this is that the SFO arrivals are directly below this route at 11;000 feet. What is it going to take to make it more clear to pilots?This seems to happen with general aviation business jet pilots and foreign aircraft pilots. Make it clearer that 12;000 feet is the final altitude on the BRIXX arrival.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported an aircraft descended below the charted assigned altitude of an RNAV arrival. The controller stated this is a recurring issue.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LBB.Tower, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C LBB
ATC / advisory: Tower LBB
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was monitor for trainee on Local. Primary in use Runway 08; secondary Runway 35L. Aircraft Y was performing instrument practice approaches to Runway 35L. Radar East coordinated his tagged climbout indicated K but was actually direct CRAIG. Afterwards Radar requested an ILS 17R for inbound Aircraft X flight still 30 miles out to the northwest.We had 2 departures taxiing to Runway 08. The first aircraft was launched when he got to the runway. As the [Aircraft] was rolling we look at the tag for Aircraft Y and he is tagged for T2J; no coordination for this approach had been done; so we talked about it; watched it; then continued scanning our active traffic.Aircraft X called ready to depart at Runway 08. We looked and noticed that Aircraft Y appeared to be in a procedure turn as if executing the full procedure for the T2 approach. Talked about it again. Trainee asked me what to do in this situation; I told him to launch Aircraft X and to send the strip a couple moments early to let Radar know that we were still launching traffic off of Runway 08. Aircraft Y was now appearing to be joining the inbound course; not tagged or coordinated as an opposite direction operation or approach.Aircraft X rolls and when airborne was told to contact departure just as Aircraft Y was checking in. I asked Aircraft Y if he was cleared for the approach; the pilot answered in the affirmative; I then instructed him to cancel the approach; turn south (away from departing traffic) and maintain altitude for sequence back to the field. Ground Control assisted in making sure that we had both aircraft in sight before any loss of separation occurred (if any).Re-training on Opposite Direction procedures. Possible re-evaluation of when opposite direction approaches can/should be approved.




Synopsis: Lubbock Tower Controller reported an unsafe opposite direction operation.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On flight following to ZZZ; handed off to tower.  Tower instructs us to enter a right base for XX; report 2 mile right base.  Heard tower clear transition to another aircraft; and then issued a traffic advisory with regards to us.  Reported location and my instructor and I saw the aircraft on a perpendicular trajectory at same altitude; took evasive action; and was then cleared to land.  We knew that the traffic had been issued the advisory that we were at their 2 o'clock and they were south of us; northbound; but had no idea where they specifically were.  Had we been issued a traffic advisory as well; especially as their trajectory directly conflicted with our instructions; we would have been able to safely avoid this encounter. After touchdown; we were instructed to exit right when able.  We inadvertently began a right turn on to RWY XY/XZ but did call tower and receive instructions to taxi on the runway prior to entry.  The excitement resulting from the near miss only minutes before had severely compromised our situational awareness.




Synopsis: A student pilot with his flight instructor overheard their position announced to an aircraft transitioning the airport area; but they were not provided position information in regard to the traffic. They were surprised to find themselves in a near-mid-air-collision situation and took evasive action.
Date: 201905
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other tow to gate
Flight phase: Other Towing / Taxiing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other under tow
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While towing an B777 into gate XX from the maintenance hangar; we were cut off by a vendor vehicle. The vehicle was coming at a high rate of speed on the vehicle service road from east to west. We were exiting taxi lane X and headed north into XX [Gate]. The vehicle was flagged to stop by a member of our team but choose not to stop; so the driver continued across our path into the gate. While fully loaded with the 777 elevated; I had to make a complete and total stop in order not to collide. We came within 10' of an accident.




Synopsis: Tow driver reported while towing a B777 they had a close call with a vendor vehicle.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TOA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D TOA
ATC / advisory: Tower TOA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Location; Distance; Altitude; Separation and Time are Approximate.Flight was conducted in VMC conditions; with 10+ nm visibility and 15;000+ feet ceilings. Time of the occurrence was approximately early afternoon. No flight plan was filed; however ATC flight following/transition was utilized and requested with LAX and Torrance Tower's while transitioning through the LAX Bravo Airspace and continuing through Torrance's Class Delta; southbound along the shoreline near Palos Verdes Estates at altitudes between 100 - 300 feet MSL. While flying southbound along the coastline of Palos Verdes Estates; approximately 3 - 3 ½ nm west of TOA and just north of Bluff Cove; I encountered/noticed an Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)/Drone moving from my 10 - 9 o'clock high position at approximately 200 feet horizontal and 150 feet vertically above. Upon noticing and as a safety precaution; I altered my flight path slightly to the right and continued uneventful.




Synopsis: A helicopter pilot flying the shoreline near TOA at 100 - 300 MSL took evasive action from a UAS flying approximately 100 feet above his altitude.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We] returned to field after takeoff. After a normal take-off; the gear was selected up; this caused a constant banging under and forward of the fuselage combined with an alternating amber and green gear indication light on the right main gear. We informed ATC we wished to make a left turn and remain in the pattern; and return for a visual approach and landing. The gear lever was selected down; the extension was normal; with 3 green down and locked indications; and the banging noise immediately stopped. We made a normal visual traffic pattern to a normal landing. There was no crisis; no traffic in the pattern; no priority handling required (Because of no traffic and all normal indications).We landed overweight at 43;850lbs but less than 300FPM on touchdown; and taxied normally to the gate. Dispatch and [Maintenance] contacted. ASAP report was delayed due to the massive changes to the website that makes navigation of the site far too difficult for a first time visit!




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported returning to the departure airport after noting a banging noise upon landing gear retraction.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: CTAF INF
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While being vectored and cleared for an on RNAV Approach as soon as frequency change was advised it was noted a plane was on runway opposite direction that cleared within 15 seconds and another that had taken runway took off at the same time. Evasive maneuver taken by me and no accident happened. As I turned eastbound another aircraft was noted to be on left base for runway 19. Three aircraft had been flying runway that winds did not favor and an accident could have occurred. I am interested in understanding what should have been done differently.




Synopsis: Pilot on approach to a non towered airport reported a NMAC with an opposite direction departure.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During flap extension for landing; they would not extend to 35 degrees. We returned the lever to 28 degrees; and unsuccessfully attempted flaps 35 a second time. We returned the flap lever to 28 degrees; executed a go around; declared an emergency; accomplished checklists and then briefed for a flap 28 landing. The approach; landing and rollout were uneventful. CFR examined the landing gear for hot brakes. All cockpit indications were normal. When cleared; we taxied to parking and shutdown.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: When their flaps wouldn't extend to the 35 degree landing setting the flight crew of an MD-11 executed a go around; conducted appropriate checklists; declared an emergency; landed uneventfully; had the brakes tested for heat by CFR and taxied to parking.
Date: 201702
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: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was switched from approach control to tower at about 3 to 4 miles from the airport and at 3000 MSL.  I was informed to enter a right downwind and did so.  I performed my landing checklist and then entered a base turn.  I came into the final a little bit high and overshot the runway a bit as well; but that was corrected immediately.  I was under no pressure whatsoever by ATC to land quickly or get off the runway quickly.  I came in to land with 2 notches of flaps and was still a little high and a little bit fast.  As I was about to touchdown I started my flare too early and started oscillating.  When I eventually touched down the back wheels hit first; closely followed by the nose wheel.  I immediately could not keep the plane straight.  I could feel it drifting to the left and I tried to correct that with right rudder; but the plane was not responding that well.  It kept fish tailing and turning left and right on the runway and I had no control over it.  Eventually it took a hard left; not under my control; onto a taxiway where the nose wheel completely collapsed and the propeller struck the ground.




Synopsis: PA-28 student pilot reported a loss of directional control on landing that resulted in a runway excursion and damage to the aircraft.