elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B747-400
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SFO Tower cleared us to 'line up and wait 28R'; a B747-400 had landed in front of us and was told to hold short of Runway 28L. We were then cleared for take off. Close to V1 we heard the Tower issue the B747 a clearance to cross Runway 28L. He was on Taxiway Q at the time. We were just starting our rotation when we passed Taxiway Q and were subjected to significant buffeting from his jet blast. We managed to complete the take off without incident. The First Officer mentioned that this was the second time this has happened to him at SFO. The Tower needs to be aware of the hazard of jet blast from this size aircraft and not allow taxi while another aircraft is taking off behind it. A smaller aircraft would be even more adversely affected.




Synopsis: B747 departure from SFO Runway 28R was subjected to significant buffeting on rotation from another B747 being taxied across Runway 28L at Taxiway Q; the reporter indicating that this was the second encounter at SFO.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During our enroute climb out I noticed the yellow dashes briefly appeared on the fuel quantity gauge on the MFD (Multi-function Display). After the dashes cleared I noticed an irregularity with the fuel quantity indication showing lower than required. My FO (First Officer) stated that he had this issue before but couldn't remember what aircraft; that combined with a fuel leak issue we had earlier in the day with the same aircraft led us to the decision to not take any chances and return to [departure airport] to sort the issue out on the ground. We did not [advise ATC] but asked for no delay in returning to the airport. We landed without incident and taxied to the ramp. I coordinated with Maintenance Control who called onsite maintenance to come troubleshoot the issue. Upon arrival I described the issue to the mechanic who stated 'We have actually had numerous fuel gauge or quantity issues this past week due to the heat and fuel contamination. We should sump the tanks and see what we find.' I agreed and the mechanic did sump the tanks and did find approximately 1 cup of water after the sumping was complete. The mechanic then added that with the finding of water in the system; the amount they found was enough where it very well could have led to the erroneous indication issue we saw. I refueled the aircraft and monitored the fueling in person to ensure no contamination was present and quantity was correct on all available instrumentation. Upon receiving the all clear from the mechanic and Maintenance Control we then took off and completed the flight without further disruption.




Synopsis: EMB-135 Captain reported returning to departure airport following fuel quantity display anomalies due to fuel contamination.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During preflight; I checked all the CB panels. I saw that there was a CB collared behind the First Officer (FO) seat; but it looked like the normal collars that are used on items that have been deactivated. So I thought nothing of it.We pushed back; started both engines; shut down the APU and taxied out on two engines.Then a weather delay caused us to shut an engine down to save gas. The moment we shutdown the number two engine; we lost all kinds of things. And got some odd EICAS messages. Then the avionics stopped cooling properly. We called [Maintenance]; but after a while they told us to return to the gate. Eventually it became clear that the bus ties were not working.We got back to the gate and a mechanic found that the collared CB behind the FO seat was the 'bus tie enable' CB. He said that whoever put that collar on should have used the red collars that have 'remove before flight' ribbons on it. The mechanic took it very seriously and said he was going to follow up with proper reports and with the Maintenance training department.




Synopsis: B767-300 First Officer reported returning to the gate after experiencing loss of a number of components following an engine shutdown during taxi. Maintenance found a bus tie circuit breaker was improperly collared.
Date: 201911
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: When we were in the new deice pad at ORD; we watched an [aircraft] in front of us get deiced. The deice crew used Type 1 on the wings then Type 4 on the wings. They then moved to the fuselage and sprayed Type 1 again. Finally; the tail and sprayed Type 1 then Type 4. I have 2 concerns. Does the overspray of Type 1 onto the already sprayed Type 4 contaminate or dilute the Type 4? Is the time they give for the beginning of the second application accurate?




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported concerns regarding de-icing procedures.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying into Charlotte we were nearly hit by a drone. We were on a 300 heading descending to 3;000 FT and cleared to join the [Runway] 36L localizer. We were about 11 miles out and halfway between [runways] 36L and 36C when I looked up and saw a red and black drone fly roughly 100 FT below us. It had four different propellers or blades and appeared to be moving west to east. Immediately reported it to ATC had no further problems.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain experiences a NMAC with a quad rotor drone above 3;000 FT approaching Runway 36L at CLT.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MWH.Airport, WA
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE; Tower MWH
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying to ALW; Walla Walla [using] VFR Flight Following. I was flying 5 miles west of a direct line course; there is a lot of sky diving in that area east of Ritzville; Washington cruising at 5;500 feet. Over Ritzville I was handed off form Grant County to Seattle Center 10 miles sooner than in any time in the past. I fly this route often. Contacted Seattle and told them I was going to climb to 7;500 feet for smother air; they acknowledged. Started a slow climb which dropped my air speed to 100 and had climbed maybe 100 feet. With nose high I noticed the sky diving plane climbing and had just passed in front of me headed East and I am headed South. It would have been a lot closer if I had stayed on same course or had a slower climb. No warning from Grant County Before handing me off and no warning from Seattle when I contacted them; approximately 2 miles due south of Ritzville. There were vehicles and a plane parked at the sky diving club and always notified when they are in the air and that is why I fly around Ritzville to try to stay out of their area.




Synopsis: A C182 pilot experiences a NMAC with a skydiving aircraft at 5;500 feet over Ritzville; Washington. VFR flight following with Seattle Center was in use but no traffic call was issued.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight at FL320 I had noticed a physiological change in pressurization. It had drawn my attention to the EICAS and noticed that the differential pressure was rising as well as the cabin altitude. I had verbalized the issue and called for the oxygen masks. I had put my oxygen mask on as well as the captain and then performed the memory items for the emergency descent. We had notified the flight attendant and ATC of our intentions while performing several duties. Once we had leveled off at 10;000 feet; we decided on an alternate and landed uneventfully and taxied to the gate without incident. The aircraft had approximately 25 passengers on it which is light in relation to standard operations. During the descent the aircraft had pitched down excessively to maintain the 240 knots as stated by procedure. The captain had reduced the descent to 220 knots because he stated that the tail was shaking. The aircraft was never out of control however this event varied from the suggested emergency descent procedure.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer at FL320 detected a pressure change in his ears and noted on the EICAS that the cabin altitude was rising. Oxygen masks were donned and an emergency descent initiated with a level off at 10;000 feet. The crew elected to divert to a suitable alternate.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Rain; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E D10
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Inbound to DAL the aircraft had reached FL450. Approximately 35 minutes into the flight; we experienced a failure of the left front windshield outer pane. The windshield was completely covered in cracks and the heating system was lost. We advised Center of the issue and requested descent which was complied with. Our original clearance was to the STNLI Intersection for the JFRYE2 RNAV Arrival. At some point; ATC recleared us via the NANDR2; direct GREGS comply with the speeds and altitudes at GREGS. At GREGS intersection the RNAV descent was initiated and the next crossing restriction was between 6;000 and 8;000 feet at GUUCH followed by 6;000 feet at NANDR and 5;000 feet at CROEW. At some point after GUUCH and prior to NANDR; the aircraft began a descent earlier than NANDR. The crew did not notice; nor was there an audible altitude alert; the early descent and because of the next crossing restriction was 5;000; it appeared the aircraft was descending normally. Just prior to CROEW; the aircraft continued to descend and I recognized it at approximately 4;700 feet; 300 feet below the crossing restriction. The PF arrested the descent and began recovering the altitude which may have exceeded 400 feet.The company has been understaffed for several months and this flight crew had an extreme schedule due to the lack of personnel. The company was notified and requested; and received; that no additional flights be added to the schedule until the staffing issue can be resolved.In addition; the flight crew should be aware and competent in the operation of the aircraft systems; situational awareness and the particular process of the VNAV operational sequences.




Synopsis: A corporate pilot experienced a failed cockpit window and requested a descent. During the arrival; a crossing restriction was not honored by the Flight Management System.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: Tower MCO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We crossed the HAMMY glide slope intercept point at 3000 MSL and started down the glide path. The altitude checked and everything seemed normal. Almost immediately the aircraft started oscillating in pitch in response to the erratic glide slope. I made a comment to my First Officer that he was going to have to kick the autopilot off and hand fly the aircraft as the autopilot was not doing an adequate job. FO disconnected the autopilot and began hand flying. Everything at first appeared normal. Finally; he made the comment to me that 'something was not right; it was taking almost 1500 FPM to stay on the glide path.' This is about the point we were coming though the broken layer at around 1200 AGL. He had just established visual contact with the ground and the runway. I told [him] I agreed with him and thought he should level off as it appeared we were low for our distance from the airport. Immediately after I made this comment the Tower Controller informed us he had a low altitude alert on our aircraft and to check our altitude. We leveled off and visually captured the PAPI. From there we flew the PAPI to the runway. From that point through the landing the glide slope indicator showed one and a half dots high. It is worth noting at the time of this incident runway 18L was closed and Orlando was using runway 18R for both takeoffs and landings. There was a solid line of aircraft holding short of the runway waiting to takeoff. We let the Tower know what had occurred and confirmed with them after landing that the ILS signal had not been protected during our landing.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported receiving a low altitude alert from the Tower on approach to MCO when taxiing aircraft probably interfered with the glideslope signal.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Autoland
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Captain (CA) and Pilot Flying (PF). The Aircraft and I were both in need of a CAT III/autoland/FCC (Flight Control Computer); so we planned; briefed and executed an autoland at ZZZ via the ILS Z RWY XR.  Ops normal until the Flare phase of the approach; when the AUTO LAND Warning Light Illuminated; and as per SOP for CAT III; I executed an uneventful go-around and we were vectored for a visual approach back to RWY XR.  FO/PM (First Officer / Pilot Monitoring) notified ATC the reason for the go-around was for [an] autoland fault. During the entire flight I was monitoring the fuel status since we were dispatched to arrive with a little under 5000 lbs (5.0).  ATC descended us early which decreased the arrival fuel. And then the go-around further decrease the arrival fuel. During the radar downwind on the second approach I noticed that the fuel was at 3.6 just before turning base.   At about 1000 feet AGL on the second approach the FUEL LO LVL intermittently annunciated on the pper ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor). Landing and taxi to the Gate was uneventful. RSV (Reserve) Fuel was 2.9.  I made an AML (Aircraft Maintenance Log) entry noting the failure of the FCC/autoland. I noted that on the flight progress report in the center column the Mach/flight level was showing 370/.76; but based on flying the uploaded flight plan with updated winds; we were at FL370/.78 which did give us a higher burn and decreased the arrival fuel.  ATC descended us earlier than was planned on the flight plan; which coincidentally was at the exact same point and altitude as the flight I flew the day prior on a line check. The obvious suggestion would be to carry more fuel.  Input the lower crossing altitudes into the flight planning software.




Synopsis: Flight Crew flying A319 aircraft landed with lower than planned fuel.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After topping off all 4 tanks in the Cherokee Six I departed the airport with a private pilot that wanted to get checked out in the Cherokee Six. We did about 1 hour of maneuvers in the practice area; mostly on the left tip tank; then returned to the airport for touch and go's. During the Pre-Landing checklist the pilot switched tanks to the right tip tank. He had remembered that the POH recommended using the tip tanks first. The POH also recommends that fullest main or tip tank be selected for landing. The POH also recommends that the fullest main tank be used for takeoff.After climbing out from Runway 17L after the first touch and go; during a turn to left cross-wind the engine began to sputter. It never quit. I immediately took the controls; switched tanks to the right main; leveled the wings and looked for a place to land. The engine returned to normal operation in about 3 or 4 seconds. I called the Tower and informed them that we were having engine trouble and wanted to return to land on Runway 35R. We were cleared to land on 35R and did so without incident. Maintenance did not find any issues with the aircraft. We're not sure what the issue was.




Synopsis: A PA-32 engine faltered after the student pilot selected the opposite tip tank which apparently had sufficient fuel and being in the landing pattern; the instructor made a full stop landing.