elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OKC.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C OKC
ATC / advisory: Tower OKC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: It was night; overcast at 300 feet; with winds from the northeast. ATC advised us to expect the ILS 35R in OKC. I was pilot flying and when I briefed the threats; I mentioned that one of the OKC runways has LED runway lights that are pretty bright and make it hard to actually see the pavement. The approach was stable by the FAF and we broke out as expected at about 300 feet. The runway lights must have been turned all the way up on high because of the weather conditions; and 35R was indeed the runway with LEDs; edge lights; centerline; and touchdown zone. It was so bright that I literally could not see the pavement when landing. The landing was not hard but it was flat as the result of a later than normal roundout; and I was flaring almost entirely off the callouts of the radar altimeter. The captain agreed with me after the fact and stated that it was like landing in a black hole with absolutely no depth perception. (I should say that I believe the lights are LED. In any case they seem to be a lot brighter than normal runway lights.)The cause of the event was simply being in a [Medium transport; low wing; 2 turbojet engines aircraft] where the cockpit is lower to the ground; with blindingly bright runway lights in our faces. Our landing lights did nothing illuminate the pavement in front of us; as it was completely washed out by the runway lights until we were 5-10 feet off the ground. I didn't see any notes on the 10-9 Jeppesen airport chart stating whether the runway had LED lights; although I'll check again later today. Now that I know which of the runways has those lights; I'll remember to ask the tower to turn the lights on medium or low next time. I can understand having super bright approach lights; but overly bright centerline and touchdown zone lights can make for an unsafe situation. As pilots we use the radar altimeter as a tool for aiding in the timing of the roundout; but I think we all still need some depth perception especially for the touchdown.




Synopsis: Pilot while landing in OKC; complains about the lighting system being too bright and thinks they may be LED lights.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After taking off and climbing through flight level 180 L CSD PRESS LOW and L GEN OFF LIGHT came on simultaneously. First Officer (FO) started the CSD PRESS LOW checklist in the QRH. We followed the checklist which led to L CSD disconnect because of high outlet and rise temps; and no voltage and frequency. We were dispatched with the APU INOP and now down to one generator. We advised ATC and returned without incident. We landed under max landing weight.


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


Synopsis: MD80 flight crew reported being dispatched with an inoperative APU then lost the left generator due to loss of CSD oil. Flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MGM.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D MGM
ATC / advisory: Tower MGM
Second aircraft: Fighting Falcon F16
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We lifted off MGM. It was a clear day; with light winds and good visibility. We took off from the end of Runway 28 cleared runway heading to 3;000 FT. The take off; rotation and initial climb went normal; with call outs and control movements at the correct time/speeds. At approximately 2;200 FT and about 200 KTS my (pilot flying; left seat) left windscreen was filled with an incredible view of an F-16 in a 90 degree left banked turn crossing the nose of our aircraft. It was so close I could see the panel lines on its wings. At just over 2;300 FT I was looking out my far left window straight down the 16's tailpipe. There was no ATC callout. There was no one else on our Tower frequency. There was no TCAS alert; just engine noise and my passengers uttering a few expletives. We learned that a flight of four 16's had come in and that the fourth element had broken off for some reason. I also learned that their normal overhead traffic entries and patterns are done at 1;700 FT; not 2;200-2;300 as we experienced. This guy was well in excess of the 200 KT limit and probably over the 250 KTS limit us mere mortals have to observe. I think this incident is an excellent example of the incompatibility of civilian and military aircraft. Regardless of how equipped; it is ridiculous that they can disregard altitude and speed rules and fly in totally hidden to any civilian traffic.




Synopsis: A Corporate pilot reported a near miss with an  F16 at 2;200 FT after departing MGM with no alert from ATC or TCAS warning.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Fatigue
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given an initial descent from FL450 to FL430 on the MOD5 arrival. The incident occurred between OAL and INYOE. As the pilot in command I misheard the communication and thought we were cleared to FL320. I noticed the First Officer change the altitude pre-select but I did not verify what number was put in the window. I initiated a Vertical Speed descent of 1500 FPM and disconnected the autothrottles to keep from over speeding. I called for the descent checklist which was run by the First Officer.I was preoccupied with the speed in the descent because of the autothrottles being off. I was not monitoring the vertical descent since that was hard selected at 1500 FPM but I noticed the speed all of sudden started dropping from my target of .8M to .77M very quickly. At that moment I noticed we were level at FL430 and I looked at the altitude pre select which said FL430. I manually initiated another VS descent still thinking we had been cleared to FL320. I asked the first officer why 430 was in the preselect window and he stated that was what were cleared to. I called Oakland center and ask for a clarification on our altitude to which [they] verified FL430. I disconnected the auto pilot and initiated a climb. The deviation was 750 FT below assigned altitude. I believe the cause was twofold:The primary reason for the deviation was failure by both the Captain and the First Officer to follow proper procedures in verifying and verbally confirming assigned altitude; and vertical mode in use. A second contributing factor was an early morning departure which and multiple maintenance issues with the airplane which contributed to the fatigue. Both the Captain and the First Officer received very little sleep and were at the airport [early] morning for departure. (Assigned crew rest was not a factor)


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


Synopsis: Gulfstream IV flight crew reported flying through cleared altitude when the pilot flying misunderstood the descent clearance.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Recirculation Fan
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I was contacted by ZZZ1 Maintenance for Aircraft X; a B757-200 and ZZZ2 Maintenance for another B757-200; Aircraft Y; regarding their inability to configure the right recirculation (recirc) fan wiring as called out in company fleet campaign directive (FCD) 21-25-XXX.  There was no stud for a clamp on the [recirc Fan] connector bracket as shown in Figure-3; Item-3.  After unsuccessful attempts to contact the Project Engineer; I suggested to have them [ZZZ1-ZZZ2 Maintenance] reassign the work later that day after the Project Engineer reviewed the problem.  The wiring had been inspected with no damage found and protective sleeving had been installed per the FCD.  Wiring was secured with clamps and not touching any structure.  ETOPS aircraft.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Maintenance representative reports he was contacted by two company line maintenance stations regarding their inability to configure the right recirculation fan wiring on two B757-200 ETOPS aircraft as called-out in their Fleet Campaign Directive (FCD) 21-25-XXX.  Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-12-03 involved.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: A line of thunderstorms was approaching PNS from the west.  After discussions with ATC and Dispatch; we elected to hold at GCV VOR to try to let the storms pass PNS. After about [45 minutes] of holding; in IMC; at FL350; we decided to divert to ZZZ.  We notified ATC of our intentions; and they gave us a new heading and a lower altitude.  Upon commencing our descent; we got a SPS ADVANCE caution on the EICAS.  Immediately following the message; the First Officer (FO) informed me [that] my airspeed was low and trending lower.  We both realized very quickly that the Captain (CA) side airspeed was unreliable.  I continued the descent and turned off the autopilot while the FO ran the QRH.  The FOs airspeed seemed to be functioning properly; at first.  We informed ATC that we would need a lower altitude and had an emergency in progress.  The CA airspeed eventually went blank; and the FOs went as low as about 150KIAS.  The event continued for about 4 to 5 minutes; and both airspeeds returned to functioning normally in the mid 20's.  After descending to 11;000 feet; and verifying that all airspeed indicators were indicating correctly with our pitch/power tables; and verifying airspeed and altitude with ATC; and with the ground in sight; we cancelled the emergency and landed with no event.Threats: No airspeed indicationAvoid holding in IMC.  If possible.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 Captain reported losing reliable airspeed indications while operating in IMC.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DWH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D DWH
ATC / advisory: Tower DWH
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; 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 Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching DWH from the Southwest I developed a mental movie of the set up for runway 17L; with a left downwind entry. Starting the chain of errors on my part I believe I asked for RW 17R; not 17L. Tower cleared me for a right downwind 17R; which I acknowledge; but the mental movie of my approach and landing was so strong I continued with 'my' plan and crossed over the departure end of the field for the left downwind; RW 17L. Although I read back the tower clearance correctly I did not properly process what they told me because of the incredibly strong expectation to be cleared for 'my' plan. Tower asked; in a nice way; where are you going? I repeated their previous instructions; right downwind for 17R all the time playing my mental movie which was telling me I was in the right place. I was turning base for 17L when tower explained I was to be on the other side of the airport. If you can remember old time images of movie film getting stuck in the projector and melting that's how I feel. Tower had me climb immediately on a westerly heading as there was a corporate jet starting its take off roll. I don't know my exact altitude crossing runway 17R but I would estimated 700 feet AGL as I crossed over the jet on its takeoff roll.My airline training taught me to be as efficient with my approach and landing; minimizing the taxi time to the gate. I was doing the same thing in my little Cessna and locked my self in to completing that task as I saw it. I will no longer create that mental movie of what I want before I talk to the tower. Expectation and anticipation are a powerful mental process that obviously over road 50+ plus years of professional experience.




Synopsis: Cessna pilot reported deviating from ATC instructions due to expectation bias.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Safety Manager
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was arriving in from the northeast of ZZZ; was cleared for the ZZZZZ3 arrival; and had been cleared direct to ZZZZZ intersection at 8;000 feet. Company aircraft was at 8;000 feet when a small drone passed on left side just below the left wing. Pilot did report it to ZZZ Center; just prior to being handed off to Approach. The drone appeared to have four greenish colored lights on it and was maybe 50 feet to 100 feet below aircraft.




Synopsis: Air taxi flight crew was on a descent when they noticed a small UAS within 50-100 feet of their flight path. Crew notified ATC.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: DME
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After departing Runway 24 from TEB on the Teterboro Eight departure; I was watching the DME looking for 4.5. I leveled at 1;500; turned to heading 280 and the DME read 7.1; so I continued the climb to 2;000 FT. At approximately 1;700 FT MSL; the DME went blank. When it came back on; it read only 3.7; indicating that I was inside the climb area. At that point; NY Departure gave me a climb to 6;000 FT MSL and nothing was said or mentioned about the climb. I will back-up the DME with the VOR radial; as is the procedure for 'non-DME-equipped aircraft'.




Synopsis: PA31 pilot reports climbing early on the TEB 8 departure due to faulty DME equipment aboard his aircraft.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ABQ.TRACON, NM
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Training was in progress on the south position. Very complex traffic with a low time trainee. Aircraft X was an IFR overflight traveling west to southeast. The developmental was holding on; just barely; and has a habit of filing overflight strips. I didn't check the route. Aircraft X continued on his route and we continued to work the busy sector. Prior to Aircraft X reaching the TCP (Transfer of Control Point) center called and asked if we were going to climb Aircraft X. That's when I noticed his route and that he was entering an 11;300 foot Minimum Vectoring Altitude area at 11;000 feet. I then climbed him to 13;000 feet and the supervisor coordinated with center. Be sure to check overflight routing; especially when conducting training.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported conducting training and failing to notice the trainee allowed an aircraft on a route below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: ACARS
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were enroute when we were notified that a Passenger passed out. While coordinating with Dispatch; through ACARS; the Captain and I were determining whether diverting was necessary. Unfortunately; because the Captain was communicating with Dispatch on ACARS; and we were in an aircraft that only allows one person on ACARS at a time; I was unable to get the data I needed (weather at suitable divert bases) in a timely manner. By the time I was able to access ACARS; we passed [the diversion airport]. Both the Captain and I needed access to ACARS at the same time for very different reasons. We were able to continue on to [the destination] without incident. However; not having ACARS on both sides is a Safety of Flight issue. In a worst case scenario; we do not have the equipment necessary to accomplish our duties.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported being unable to obtain information for a diversion due to not having an ACARS unit for each pilot.