elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: GPS jamming was being conducted. In accordance with FOM (Flight Operations Manual) a mandatory report is required in the event of 'GPS interference; jamming; or navigation disruption.' With the latest revision to the FOM this report is now required to be entered in the AML (Aircraft Maintenance Log). I inadvertently forgot to make an AML entry after I had made two other entries for maintenance related items. As there is nothing wrong with the aircraft GPS equipment when GPS jamming is being conducted; it is easy to forget to make an AML entry. I have previously brought attention to our Flight Safety Department the fact that GPS interference testing is not being included in our NOTAMS. The notifications are available at faasafety.gov. There is additional interference testing going on throughout [this month]. I doubt these will be entered in our company NOTAMS. It is rather frustrating to see in our NOTAMS over two pages on latitude-longitude coordinates for cranes at PHX but none for GPS interference testing which our company now requires an AML entry; a Flight Safety report; and a Security Report.A new requirement for an AML entry in the event of GPS jamming was inadvertently overlooked. Change the FOM mandatory report table to read 'unknown' or 'unforecast' GPS interference; jamming; or navigation disruption and include FAA published GPS interference testing advisories in company NOTAMS. Not doing so leads to willful noncompliance with the FOM.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported they failed to document a GPS jamming event in the Aircraft Maintenance Log.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Checked on with Oakland Center and were cleared direct to NRRLI and to descend via the SERFR 3. I mistakenly went direct to NARWL; a similar sounding fix. I put it in the FMC and executed. The Captain was on the PA at the time. When he came back I told him of our clearance and shortly after was asked by ATC if we were going to NRRLI intersection. I said that we were and the Controller then corrected the mistake. Continued the flight with no further error. Cleared to a way point/ went to wrong fix.


Second narrative: Enroute to MAKRS; Oakland Center cleared us to what we thought was NARWL way point and to descend via the SERFR 3 Arrival to SFO. A few minutes later Center questioned us on our course; when we reported that we were going to NARWL; the Center Controller then re-cleared us to NRRLI; which was where he had originally intended for us to go; and to descend via the SERFR 3; the remainder of the flight was uneventful. The fact that two similar sounding way points on the arrival was confusing. Two similar sounding way points names can be confusing. Maybe change one of the names on the SERFR 3 Arrival.


Synopsis: B737 Flight Crew reported navigating to wrong; similar sounding waypoint.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During flight we were on final approach to Runway XXR. At approximately 200 feet above ground level; I heard a loud bang and saw some motion or light refraction at the Captain's window. I looked over to the left and noticed the Captain's front window was cracked. ATC was notified of the cracked window. We landed normally and taxied to the gate. During post flight no evidence of a bird strike was found. We were unable to determine the cause of the cracked window. During post flight no evidence of a bird strike was found.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported the cockpit window cracked on approach to landing.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared for the visual approach. On about a 5 to 7 mile final while conducting the Before Landing Checklist; the landing gear handle was moved to the 'down' position. After the landing gear was finished cycling; it was noted that the right main landing gear 'down' light was not illuminated. The landing gear was recycled; and again the right main landing gear 'down' light did not illuminate. I notified Tower that we were not receiving an indication that our right main landing gear was down and locked and that we would like to do a low approach and have them look to see if they saw all three landing gear down and the landing lights on. After the low approach; we were informed by the Tower that they could see all three landing gear and the main landing gear lights were on; and then asked what we would like to do. I informed the Tower we were running our checklists but would like to stay in the pattern while we conducted the checklists. We were then asked by the Tower if we would like the fire trucks standing by when we made our landing; which I replied 'Sure'. After discussing the situation in the cockpit; it was the conclusion of both pilots that the light bulb was most likely burnt out and the landing gear was indeed down and locked; and a normal landing should be made. However; just to make sure the landing gear was actually down and to avoid any problems; the Emergency Landing Gear Extension Checklist was run and the landing gear was 'blown down' using the nitrogen bottle. The landing was made normally; and after landing; the fire trucks pulled up next to the aircraft to inspect it and verify that everything was OK. After we relayed everything was fine; they drove off and the airplane was taxied the FBO where service was then set up by the Director of Maintenance. The aircraft was serviced and flown home the next day without incident.




Synopsis: LR35 Captain notes the failure of the right main landing gear down light to illuminate after gear extension during approach. A go around is initiated and the Tower advises that the gear appear to be down. To make sure the emergency landing extension checklist is run and the gear is blown down followed by a safe landing.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CCR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CCR
ATC / advisory: Tower CCR
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was descending on a 4 mile left base to Runway 32L at Buchanan Field in Concord; CA (CCR); in a low wing aircraft. I was doing so at the command of the FAA Control Tower at said airport. I started a descent at approximately 3000 ft MSL. During this descent I heard the Tower clear a Cessna aircraft for a touch and go on runway 32L. There were several other aircraft in the pattern on Runway 32R. I heard no other communication from the Tower concerning 32L. At a distance of approximately one (1) mile on base a Cessna high wing aircraft passed left to right below my aircraft at a vertical distance of approximately fifty (50) feet. The white Cessna aircraft appeared from below my left wing flying diagonally from my wing to fuselage. I clearly saw the two occupants in the front seats. They did not look up and did not appear to see my aircraft pass above them as they proceeded downwind in the pattern. At no time did the radar equipped Tower warn of an impending collision. I was given permission to land and after landing I reported the near midair collision. I was told to call the Tower after parking and engine shut down. When I did so and described the event I was told that their (the CCR Tower) radar coverage was 'spotty' in that direction. The Tower person also said I was asked to report a two (2) mile base. I did not receive that radio call from the Tower; nor was I warned of the near midair collision.Visibility at the time of this incident was approximately five (5) miles in haze. I think the Tower Controller might have been distracted by the relatively heavy traffic on the parallel Runway 32R. It would be best if the radar coverage to the southwest was continuous at the CCR Tower. This should be repaired or fixed immediately.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot on a visual approach to CCR experiences a NMAC with a Cessna on downwind not reported by the Tower. When queried after parking; the Tower indicates that their Radar is 'spotty' in the southwest quadrant.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
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: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After flying the published RNAV procedure for Runway 21; and then getting the runway in sight visually an EGPWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System) sounded at approximately 300 ft AGL. The aircraft was on the glide slope and in a position to land. After receiving the EGPWS alert an EGPWS [escape] maneuver and subsequent go around were performed and the aircraft landed safely the opposite direction.The aircraft had flown the published RNAV approach and proceeded visually to the runway on the glide slope. I am not sure what could've been done to prevent it. It's possible that we shouldn't land on Runway 21 in ZZZ if this was in fact an actual EGPWS warning. The aircraft was stabilized and on glide for a normal landing into ZZZ on Runway 21.


Second narrative: While flying the published RNAV for Runway 21 and getting the runway in sight visually an EGPWS terrain warning sounded at 300 ft AGL while following the PAPI for landing Runway 21. An EGPWS escape maneuver was performed and subsequent go around. We landed the aircraft safely on the opposite runway.Unsure of contributing factor. At the time of the warning we had the runway visually on final approach and we were following the PAPI.


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew reported a ground proximity warning at approximately 300 feet while on glideslope with runway visual contact.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Other laser
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On approach the First Officer and I were lasered. The First Officer had a direct hit and later had headaches and experienced disorientation.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported being struck by a laser on approach to SAN; resulting in disorientation and headaches for the First officer.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airliner 99
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I just departed on an initial ATC heading. I entered IMC conditions shortly after takeoff continuing during the climb out. I noticed a heading flag on the Captain's side HSI and immediately looked to the Co-pilot's side HSI and observed the course headings disagreed by more than 20 degrees. I used the information from the right side HSI to return the aircraft to the correct assigned heading. With the plane back on the correct heading I looked over to the right side electrical panel and noticed the breaker for the Captain's side HSI was tripped. Per the Company OPSPECS I reset the breaker; and the HSI returned to normal operations. I was then handed off to the next controller. I informed the next controller I suffered a primary Nav failure on climb-out which caused a momentary course deviation but the instrument was now working. About a minute into the flight and one mile north of the airport the Captain became aware of the failure by the appearance of the heading flag on the left HSI and confirmed the failure by referencing the copilot HSI. The cause of the deviation was the failure of the Captains primary navigation display immediately after take off in IMC conditions. I informed the next controller I had a nav failure that fortunately I was able to reset. Upon reaching our destination I notified the Dispatcher; the Head of Maintenance; and the Station Manager that I had a primary nav failure. An entry of the failure was made in the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook.The event was caused by an equipment failure. Equipment failures will occur often without warning; and I critical times of flight. I was able to handle the failure by training and experience. There is no way to prevent equipment failures; we can only learn how to manage failures with training.




Synopsis: Beech 99 Captain reported that an HSI failure during climb resulted in a course deviation.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-24
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pilot Flying was undergoing Supervised Operating Experience 'Mentoring' on the Pilatus PC-24 for single pilot operations.After checking on the pilot in the climb at FL430 and FL440 I returned to my seat in the cabin where I had a birddog position to watch the pilot with ATC on the overhead speaker. Pilot was climbing in PIT (PITCH) mode aware of the dangers in climbing in that mode. Many pilots like to climb in Pitch mode through FL300 at it gives the passengers a smoother ride and allows the pilot to reach cruising altitude without hunting in FLC or VS.At FL443 I heard the Center controller Yell in a DEMANDING VOICE 'I need you at FL450 in 1 minute or less.'Hearing this exclamation; I ran to the flight deck to see the pilot's reaction. The Pilot Flying selected Manual Speed on the Autothrottle and dialed the speed back. (A common technique for climbing in Autothrottle FMS mode is when a controller asks you to expedite the climb you switch to Manual Speed on the Autothrottle and dial back 20-30 knots -- this will command the APFDS to pitch up exchanging airspeed for altitude); however; in this situation; the pilot didn't realize that dialing the speed back in PITCH mode would actually retard the throttles to IDLE.The Pilot [Flying] immediately corrected for the situation; however; once the aircraft lost the energy; the plane would no longer be able to reach assigned altitude. The Controller under a lot of pressure from the government shutdown clearly took his stress on the situation that required the pilot to get to FL450 in 1 minute or less out on the Pilot Flying and hit him over and over again with radio calls task saturating the pilot. The Pilot Flying did a great job on flying the aircraft; lowering the nose to break the approaching stall; and finally when he had a minute to breathe; informed the controller he needed lower.The pilot was ground schooled after the incident that he should of 'Declared an Emergency for Safety' and told the controller of the situation.The Pilot Flying now learned how to manage that type of situation and more importantly how to manage ATC in an emergency.




Synopsis: PC24 Check Pilot reported the pilot in training did not comply with ATC clearance.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was not actually working during the event. I am the Operation Supervisor of the employee who had the event. I worked the day shift on the day of and the employee worked the night shift. The following day I became aware of the event and conducted a performance discussion with him. The employee and I reviewed the event and discussed factors that contributed to [it] and mitigations for the future. The employee was very engaged and receptive. The employee's normal performance is excellent. After reviewing the event the controller did not violate any rules and never lost separation. Aircraft X was cleared for a visual approach following traffic and switched to the Tower. The aircraft was turning to final from the left base when he went through final and conflicted with an aircraft on a parallel runway. We discussed the dangers of using the same altitude on opposing bases but I felt that was not a contributing factor in this instance. The Controller also issued a 30 degree intercept in a timely manner. It was the pilot's error of going through final that caused the event. I honestly believe that the 7110.65; 7-4-4; is responsible for placing these two aircraft in an unsafe proximity. I have had to have way too many performance discussions with employees about this very same scenario of vectoring aircraft to parallel runways during visual approaches. The procedure does not prevent aircraft from being vectored to the same point on the finals at the same altitude as long as a Controller issues the visual approach to only one aircraft. It also only gives best practices and not direction on how to keep the planes separated. I see far too many close calls where planes don't collide from pure luck. The 7110.65; 7-4-4 needs to be changed to require aircraft to have standard separation until ESTABLISHED INBOUND on the final approach course. Until then we will continue to have these very unsafe events at airports around the NAS.




Synopsis: ATC Supervisor reported a Controller complied with the rules and cleared an aircraft for a visual approach which subsequently conflicted with parallel runway traffic by flying through the final approach course.