elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I had a] possible intrusion into Class D Airspace. Aircraft was temporarily deviated from intended flight path and pilot descended from altitude due to rough engine operation. Decision was made to land when engine operation progressively got worse. Application of carburetor heat; lean mixture and abrupt change in pitch attitude temporarily resolved the engine problem. Upon landing; fuel contamination was found.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reports a possible Class D airspace incursion while attempting to troubleshoot a rough running engine. The reporter elects to land at the airport in question where contaminated fuel is discovered.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: 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; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flying FMS Bridge Visual Runway 28R. At approximately 1;500 to 1;200 feet AGL; SFO Tower cleared Aircraft Y to cross Runway 28R. At either Taxiway U or R. Couldn't tell which one exactly. I looked over to the First Officer and asked him did he just clear that guy to cross the runway? Immediately SFO Tower told Aircraft Y to hold position. No answer. Tower then said Aircraft Y stop. No answer. I told First Officer to prepare for a go around. After a 3rd call from Tower; Aircraft Y was now in the middle of the runway. Tower then directed the go around. The FMS bridge visual has a specific go around procedure listed. Runway heading to 3;000 ft. That's not what the go around instructions given from Tower which was an added distraction. Next approach was uneventful.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that a communication breakdown between ATC and another aircraft resulted in a runway incursion and a go-around.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight at FL240; Captain's windshield cracked. I advised ATC of incident and declared emergency. I asked for nearest large airport and was advised that one was ahead by 20+/- miles. [I] pulled out Raytheon emergency checklist for BE200; followed procedures as published. With autopilot on; I moved from left seat to right seat so I could see out of windshield and fly airplane. Descended in and flew ILS approach to Runway 28L and landed without incident.




Synopsis: A BE200 left windshield cracked at FL240 so the pilot declared an emergency; moved to the right seat; completed the QRH and diverted to a nearby airport for an eventful landing.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AMA.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower AMA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After landing Runway 13 instructed to Taxi K; Runway 22; P3 to gate. Turned on to Runway 22 and noticed blue marker to our right.  Asked ATC about them and was informed that is the taxiway for Runway 22. Transitioned so as to be between those. There are no NOTAMs regarding a designated taxi lane on Runway 22.  Only NOTAM listed is Runway 22 closed taxi only. I feel that the NOTAMs need to be corrected to indicate Runway 22 has an established taxilane and ATC not use the term taxi Runway 22 to P3.  Instead join taxilane on Runway 22 to P3.  Apparently there have been numerous people doing the same thing.  Markers are not lighted and very short with only reflective tape.


Second narrative: Instructed to taxi to the gate after clearing [Runway] 13 via K [Runway] 22 P3. After entering Runway 22 we noticed unlit blue markers on the runway and transitioned between those. NOTAM doesn't mention that runway has been modified to a temporary taxiway that is on part of the runway with unlit nonstandard markings. Provide more info in the NOTAM and taxi instructions that highlight the change. The taxi instructions should not reference Runway 22 but call name it a temporary taxiway which is what they have constructed over Runway 22.


Synopsis: Pilots reported confusing taxiing instructions at AMA airport and lack of a NOTAM to clarify the issue.
Date: 201904
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
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); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I did not have access to electronic means of reporting; so I gave a verbal report to the  hotline in the morning of [date]. Just before the descent to ZZZ; the #1 Flight Attendant reported to me a musty; dirty sock odor in the cabin and both galleys. There was no smell or any other indication in the cockpit. After landing we informed Maintenance and Operations about the logbook entry. My investigation of the galley and cabin revealed no lingering smells. I didn't receive any complaints from the passengers. I completed a report to the company and an Aircraft Smoke; Odor and Fumes report for Maintenance.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported Flight Attendant notification of 'dirty socks odor' in passenger cabin.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I have been flying for the airlines for 28 years. I have recently gotten back into general aviation flying. My how things have changed! I love the GPS and its ability to warn me of airspace ahead. What I didn't realize is that the GPS doesn't protect me from CLIMBING into airspace. I was flying VFR on a flight for enjoyment. I was watching the Class B airspace above me. I assumed that the airspace started at 4;000 FT. I decided to climb to 3;500 FT. I had some time to play with the GPS so I checked nearest airspace and it informed me that I was inside class B airspace. The GPS was so good about warning me about airspace ahead that I assumed it would advise if I was climbing toward airspace. The funny thing is that if I didn't have the GPS; I would have been much more aware about the airspace. Since I had the GPS; I trusted it way more than I should have. I was monitoring 121.5 and nobody called to me so I assume there were no traffic conflicts. Other than embarrassing myself there was apparently no harm.




Synopsis: An airline pilot; recently reintroduced to general aviation and flying a light sport aircraft; wrongly assumed the GPS would warn him before he climbed into Class B airspace.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: This was the last flight of the night. We had a short overnight the previous night after a very; very late; long flight.ATC clears us the NORDK3 Arrival into SLC; expect 16L. We were instructed to descend to 9000' MSL around WEBER. We continued to fly heading 161 instead of intercepting the 16L Localizer.  ATC queried us about intercepting it and we responded with; 'Do you want us to intercept 16L Localizer?'  ATC pointed out that the published arrival directs us to intercept the 16L Localizer.The arrival and transition published instructions are confusing. We both missed the fact that there are two ball notes on the page with the same letter.  The SKEES3 Arrival has the same issue.  Also; the ball notes on the page are out of sequence that led us to believe the C note was the second to last D note.  The ball notes are listed on the page as C; then A; then B; then D[1] and then D[2].  It was dark and late which led to our bias. Another fact is that the other three ball notes (A; B; and C) are in their own special boxes; while D is relegated to the bottom.  There is quite a bit of information squeezed onto one page. Why not publish this on a 2-page spread?  As a Crew; we failed to review and fly the approach correctly.  However; I would recommend that SLC adopt DEN's procedures with regard to their transitions from Arrival to Approach (including the use of 2-page depictions).




Synopsis: An Air Carrier crew flying the SLC NORDK3 RNAV arrival had a track deviation because of confusion about the two D Ball Notes with separate instructions to either Runway 16L or Ruways 16R; 17. The SKEES3 Arrival caused the same confusion.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A11.TRACON, AK
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E A11
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11
Second aircraft: Raptor (Lockheed)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Cessna was VFR heading northwest bound from Merrill Field (VFR Airport in downtown Anchorage; MRI) across the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet. A flight of 2 F22's inbound in on a visual approach to the overhead traffic pattern at Elmendorf AFB (EDF); flying the ILS ground track to Runway 6 at EDF. Additional traffic was a PC-12; VFR inbound to MRI and was opposite direction to the C172 at 12 o'clock and 4 miles at the same altitude. I advised both aircraft of each other and advised the PC-12 to turn 5 degrees right reference the Cessna; and I advised the Cessna to turn right toward Pt. No Name ref. the PC12. I also advised both aircraft of the F22's. The PC-12 advised that he had the Cessna in sight; I then switched him to MRI Tower. I advised the Cessna that the PC-12 was no factor and to resume his own navigation. The Cessna then advised that the F22's looked pretty close and that he may 'call his lawyer to talk to them about it'. I then asked the pilot if he wished to file a Near Midair Report. He said that sounded like a good idea.




Synopsis: A11 Controller described a conflict event between a VFR aircraft and a flight of two IFR Military fighter aircraft.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Captain was pilot flying; and descending on the KRATR 2 STAR of 28L at PDX.The aircraft missed a programmed FMS altitude constraint on the arrival at LIQWD. As per SOP we reviewed and verified all crossing altitudes and speeds prior to descent on the STAR. Nearing HYKER intersection (7;000-9;000 foot altitude restriction) we both noticed the airplane was not descending as planned. The Captain stated we could not make the next crossing altitude restriction for LIQWD intersection at 6;000 feet. I called out our airspeed at 224 knots to when I noticed us speeding up passed our assigned 210 knots.We both spoke about this the next day after the Captain had consulted other check airmen and their conclusion regarded the glide path to be high because the FMS would not permit the aircraft to descend below the published IAF at SHAFR (6;700 feet).This should be emphasized as a critical 'gotcha' in initial FMS training.Continually test all pilots on this. I did not know this and will always be cognizant of this altitude differences when programming a transition from a STAR to an IAF that is higher than the last designated altitude on a STAR.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier crew reported the FMS would not allow the aircraft to descend to a hard altitude on the KRATR 2 arrival to PDX because it was below the IAF altitude for the ILS 28L.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During take-off roll left engine prop rpm rolled back to from 1700 to 500 RPM torque stayed at 3000 ft-lbs. auto-feather was armed but not activated. Pilot feathered engine and performed a left pattern for ZZZ Runway XX and safely.[Identified the issue] after V1 when yawing moment began. [It was caused by] engine propeller governor failure. [In response the pilot] feathered engine and performed a left traffic pattern and landed Runway XX in ZZZ. [I suggest] maintenance leadership be more attentive to pilot write-ups; having spare airplane so routine/unscheduled maintenance is not rushed to meet unrealistic deadlines.




Synopsis: Pilot reported left engine prop RPM rolled back on takeoff; causing them to feather the left engine and return to the departure airport.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We were training. Aircraft X was coming from another sector at 10;000 feet. non-radar. Also; the data-block said the aircraft was deviating left for weather. Along the aircraft's filed route were areas of higher terrain at 11900 ft. and shortly further left was a block with an even higher MEA (Minimum En-route Altitude). The Trainee called the sector and asked where the aircraft actually was and advised him of the high terrain areas in our sector's airspace along the route. The Controller said he was updating his position and that he was fine. We called back a total of 3 other times to get an update on the aircraft. We were only [given] a position report one time and it seemed that the aircraft was at least in an area of terrain that was acceptable for his altitude. The last time we called them they stated the aircraft was doing a right 360 and that they were not going to hand us a deal and not to worry. The aircraft then showed up on radar in our airspace without an official hand off at 10;000 feet climbing to 12;000 feet; in an MEA area of 10;900 feet.  The Controller asked us to climb the traffic they had handed off to us to 13;000 feet to facilitate the aircraft's climb to 12;000 feet.  I told the Supervisor what was happening at the time and got no response; it was simply brushed off. Aircraft need to be above terrain when non radar.  Weather is a factor and aircraft need to be high enough to allow for deviations.  We called multiple times and were assured it was okay.  There was no accurate report of position from the other sector Controller even though we asked several times.  The aircraft needed to be higher; that is all. Also; if a Supervisor is told of a problem; action needs to be taken.  We had tried sector to sector coordination and failed; we then turned to the (Supervisor) who didn't take proper action the other area.




Synopsis: A ZLC Center Controller reported they received a non-radar aircraft from another sector that was below the Minimum En-route Altitude.
Date: 201305
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: Ramp
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After the passenger agent receiving our express commuter flight stopped the aircraft I chalked the nose gear and then was waiting for the main cabin door to open. As the door opened and the jetbridge was pulling up I noticed this agent was doing a walk around with engine two NOT shut down! Our Operations Manual Safety chapter states; 'Approaching the forward and aft cargo pit to offload baggage and cargo is allowed [only] after the NLG [Nose Landing Gear] is chocked; the MCD [Main Cabin Door] is open and power to the opposite area of engine operation of the cargo pit has been shut down.' I could not believe my eyes! She could have been seriously injured. This is a serious infraction.




Synopsis: A ramp serviceperson awaiting the opening of the main cabin door witnessed the passenger agent who had marshaled the commuter aircraft into the gate performing a walk around while the right engine was still operating; contrary to their operations manual.