elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 119
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was piloting my Robinson R44 on a tour reporting routine traffic calls throughout the tour and switched over to ZZZ tower prior to entering the delta airspace for my approach back to my helipad. Upon the approach to my heliport; I just happened to see a Bell 206 flying low level making aggressive turns within the ZZZ delta airspace not making calls to tower nor traffic advisory calls as all of the other tour operators do within the area. As soon as I saw the aircraft I made an immediate left turn to avoid collision and continued my normal approach into my heliport which is located just over 3 miles from the airport. I never did hear from the other aircraft the remainder of the day and yet they continued flying within the delta airspace aggressive with no radio calls to tower or traffic in the area. The bell 206 is another tour operator in the area that is very familiar with the tour operations and radio call expectations. This particular pilot seems to be getting more aggressive and not communicating on the radio to other operators on a majority of their flights making our flying as well as anyone else flying in the area at much more risk. A similar incident has occurred within a couple more days and the tower has been notified. I am concerned not only for my safety but for those in my aircraft as well as anyone else that is in that aircraft.




Synopsis: R44 pilot flying air tours from a heliport within Class D airspace experienced a NMAC with another tour helicopter pilot operating in the same area; but without communicating on the Tower frequency or the area common traffic frequency.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: TBM 700/TBM 850
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D LGB
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I would like to file this report for educational purposes as I do not believe anyone acted incorrectly in any manner. I was following an Airbus A320 to Rwy at LGB on a visual approach and I believe the Airbus may have also been on a visual approach. It appeared the Airbus was well in front of me and below me although I could only see his nav lights allowing little to gauge distance. The tower did report that I had matched the approach speed of the Airbus so I slowed 20 kts immediately. Everything seemed fine as I had contact with the runway end lights and made my way visually to the Rwy 30 threshold. Then at somewhere between 1;000 and 1;500 I experienced a 75 to 80 degree un-commanded right bank roll. I had entered the vortices of the Airbus and it was beyond anything I had ever experienced in my years of flying. I went full deflection left aileron followed by full power to avoid being rolled. I got the aircraft wings level and then experienced one more severe vertical wind shear event before returning to smooth flight. I request a left 360 for further spacing but was denied and given an option for Rwy 25L which worked out just as well. The lesson here is to be prepared for wake turbulence; monitoring following distance; altitude and flight path in comparison to the lead aircraft. Visually it appeared I had reasonable following distance and ample altitude above the big jet; however at dusk it is difficult to measure. If the lead aircraft is on a visual approach and not the glideslope or localizer you may have no other tools to avoid his flight path other than visual cues.




Synopsis: TBM 700 pilot reported encountering severe wake turbulence while on final approach to LGB airport in trail of an A320.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The clearance received was the EMZOH ONE RNAV WEST Transition. With approach we received the clearance for RNAV Y 28L approach; I briefed the approach. The arrival and initial portion of the approach was flown using LNAV/VNAV. The crossing altitudes were displayed in the FMS and the active altitude limitation [displayed] in magenta on the PFD. After crossing JUPAP fix above 3;700 MSL I elected to use vertical speed and increase my descent rate down to the next displayed altitude on the PFD 1;900 MSL at VODSY; I didn't realize that the intermediate fix was not loaded in the FMS thus not displayed on the PDF. I therefore crossed HEDER below the minimum on the approach plate; received a too low terrain warning and a warning from the controller to check my altitude.Cross check all fixes and altitudes on the FMS against the approach; the fix HEDER should be displayed on the FMS.




Synopsis: Corporate jet FO reported receiving a 'too low terrain' GPWS warning as well as a low altitude alert from ATC on approach to OAK.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All phases
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I took the insert of the food catered for the pilots up to the flight deck prior to passenger boarding. The Captain asked me to set it on the jump-seat behind him.  During boarding; the Captain came out and told us that the First Officer does not wear a mask in the flight deck and asked if either Flight Attendant A or myself would be willing to come up to the flight deck if the Captain needed a lavatory break in flight.  We both said that we would not be comfortable with coming up there if the First Officer was not wearing a mask.  Upon landing; I realized that the insert of flight deck food remained in the flight deck until after landing.Better CRM between flight deck and flight attendants if this situation comes up.  I honestly don't think that anyone even thought about it.  Flight Attendant A and I just knew that we were not going to put ourselves into the flight deck if the First Officer wasn't wearing a mask; which we would have had to in order to grab the insert.  But it absolutely was not intentionally left on the flight deck for takeoff and landing on our part.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported the FA crew were unwilling to enter the flight deck because the First Officer would not wear a face mask.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VNC.Airport, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class E VNC
ATC / advisory: CTAF VNC
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was taxiing for departure on Runway 31 at VNC. After run-up I taxied to a number 2 position behind a Cherokee at the Runway Hold Short Line for Runway 31. After some minutes I inquired if the Cherokee was going to take off soon or be waiting longer. The Cherokee responded to taxi past they would be a little longer. I asked them to move to the side of the taxiway slightly so I could pass which I did. I monitored another aircraft turning final and as I slowly taxied past the Cherokee I said I saw the airplane on final and I was going to takeoff. I believe the airplane that turned final was at least a mile or more out at that point. As I taxied on the runway the landing aircraft pilot asked if I had heard his call. I said I had and I departed. The landing aircraft pilot said he was nearly on top of me and was going around. I took off and the remainder of the flight was uneventful.  I do not believe the landing aircraft was that close but I did not get a clear view of him after I turned on the runway. I do believe I had enough time for a safe departure. However; because I taxied very slowly past the Cherokee it is possible that the landing aircraft got closer than I realized during the process. The VNC airport has heavy transit and student and training traffic and waiting for takeoff until there are not any aircraft turning final can be a problem as some aircraft turn final 4 or 5 miles out as well as practice low approach instrument approach training. In the future I will be more observant of landing aircraft and not taxi into position for takeoff unless I have complexity assured clear takeoff.




Synopsis: Cessna 182 pilot reported an aircraft on final reported a go-around after he taxied onto the runway and departed VNC airport.
Date: 201301
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 690 Series
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Sea
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While maneuvering VFR at 3;000 MSL east of the uncontrolled airport at which was the point of intended landing; the aircraft's left engine very abruptly lost all power and began to NTS (Negative Torque Sense). A shut down per the emergency checklist was completed and a uneventful single engine landing was accomplished. The aircraft cleared the runway and was shut down and towed to the hangar. Maintenance was informed and an investigation as to the cause is ongoing.




Synopsis: Turbo Commander 690 lost power in the left engine at 3;000 FT; an uneventful landing followed.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Level 1 HYD 1 Off occurred 35 minutes into flight at FL340. Autopilot 2 was in use. Autopilot kicked off with alert. Autopilot 1 selected with no altitude or route degradation. Hydraulic 1 quantity 2.6 gallons; QRH followed and prepared for loss of entire system once slats and flaps extended. [We] advised Maintenance of hydraulic problem; advised Local Maintenance and Operations of possible tow in. [We] advised Center that weather deviation was necessary and that we would be slowing to configure airplane passing 10;000 FT. Received Level 2 Hydraulic 1 Fail after extending slats and flaps. Hydraulic 1 quantity reduced to .2 gallons. Emergency was declared with Approach and the longest runway selected as the landing runway. Captain flew approach and landing. Crash crew inspected aircraft after right turn off of runway. No evidence of smoke or fire. [We] taxied to ramp using right turns only. Maintenance towed aircraft to gate with ground controls permission. The day prior to this flight there were the following hydraulic write-ups. Large quantity of hydraulic fluid accumulated in aft non reversible motor pump compartment; oil; found nose wheel steering return line leaking in center accessory compartment. Hydraulic System 3 over-serviced; evidence of hydraulic leak in right-hand aft wing root area. Left-hand MLG trim cylinder relief valve leaking.




Synopsis: A 3-engined widebody Captain experiences a Level 1 HYD 1 Off at FL340 and continues to destination. After flaps and slats are extended during approach Hydraulic System 1 fails. A normal landing ensues. The aircraft had a history of hydraulic leaks from several different locations.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Aircraft component: Altitude Alert
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were level at FL300 and were cleared to descend to FL280. I (pilot flying) set the altitude preselect to FL280 and stated; 'FL280 set.' My partner confirmed and stated; 'FL280 seen.' As I began to brief my partner on the anticipated descent; approach; and landing I noted the airplane was descending near FL280. When I scanned back I noticed that the airplane had descended through FL278. I disconnected the autopilot and returned the aircraft to FL280; from an altitude of FL277. During the recovery I noticed that the altitude preselect was now set to FL275. After being level at FL280 for about 30 seconds; the ATC controller asked us to confirm that we were level at FL280. To which we replied that we were. No further action or conversation was had between the crew and ATC regarding a possible deviation.It is widely known that the altitude selector in the GIV is extremely sensitive; as well as not having specific detents to feel that the knob has moved additionally. Also; my personal technique is to rest my finger on the knob after setting the desired altitude and leaving it there until my partner has responded that the new altitude is 'seen.' it is possible due to the operation of the knob that as I removed my finger from it; it moved additionally to the next lowest setting; although I cannot affirm that this occurred. The accurate altitude was both 'set' and 'seen;' so there had to have been additional movement of the knob. So perhaps a mechanism that I had created to ensure that both crewmembers had acknowledged the altitude change; created a new issue of not noticing immediately after confirmation of a change. Going forward; I personally; will employ the SOP of setting and confirming the change as well as confirming again on my PFD that the desired altitude is in fact set. Also; confirming that the correct altitude is still set when making the 1;000 foot call.




Synopsis: Although their cleared descent altitude of FL280 was both set and confirmed in the altitude alert window the pilot flying a G-IV noted the aircraft descending through FL278; stopped the descent and returned to FL280.  He noted that the altitude alert window had changed to 27;500.  He attributed the change excessive sensitivity of the set knob.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Local 1. Maintenance requested to taxi from the main ramp to the maintenance hangar. I issued instructions to hold short of the runway. An Air Carrier was on final and cleared to land. Maintenance crossed the runway causing the landing Air Carrier to go-around. After review of this situation it was discovered that the read back of Maintenance was incorrect. The Controller needs to be more prudent and aware of readback errors.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described an event when maintenance taxiing an aircraft to the hangar crossed the runway; resulting in traffic on final going around.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Flight ABCD and Flight ABCG; Flight ABCD entered my airspace and I cleared him direct JAMMN intersection. Flight ABCG who was just checking on took the clearance. A few minutes later I noticed that Flight ABCD was not turning and I was going to pass very close behind traffic that he would have passed well behind had he made the turn to JAMMN. I queried the pilot and she said that she had never been given the clearance; I looked around and noticed that Flight ABCG was off of his route to the West; he keyed up about that time and said that he had taken the clearance; I put him back over MFL with an expected clearance to JAMMN later. I fear that something serious; accident/midair is going to be required before [Air Carrier Company] does anything to mitigate this issue.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller voiced concern regarding the same company; similar call sign issue that led to a turn by the wrong aircraft. The reporter fearing serious safety implications if this issue is not addressed by the company.
Date: 201210
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: For the 4th time in the last 30 days I noticed that the navigation database in the 400 contains an error on the MOLEN FOUR SID out of SFO. The SID has you going to WESLA then a right turn to intercept the SFO R287 to MOLEN. The database is incorrect in that it disregards the turn and intercept and goes from WESLA direct to MOLEN. I reported this to Dispatch each time and thought I would see a NOTAM or some corrective action or warning; but there is none that I can find. Other fleet databases may be in error as well.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported his aircraft database contains an error on the MOLEN4 SID; and suspects it may be a fleet wide database issue.