elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying into SLC at FL220 on the Brigham City Three Arrival. I was cleared direct to CARTR and instructed to descend at pilots discretion to cross CARTR at 14;000 [feet]. A few minutes later I notified Salt Lake Center that I was starting down.  As I was descending  below 15;000 for 14;000 center tells me to climb and maintain 16;000 and asks me what altitude I was cleared to. I said that I was cleared to cross CARTR at 14;000. They then asked what I wanted and I said 14;000 then they re-cleared me to 14;000. ATC uses CARTR as crossing restriction at various altitudes all the time. I think this error could be reduced if the Brigham City Three arrival had a crossing restriction for turbo props at CARTR for a specific altitude; for example 14;000.




Synopsis: A Pilot began a descent to cross CARTR at 14;000 feet on the SLC Brigham City Three Arrival but passing 15;000 feet was told return to 16;000 feet. The confused pilot commented ATC clears aircraft to cross CARTR at various altitudes but 14;000 feet for turboprops works best.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BOS
Second aircraft: A330
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: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After receiving our clearance from Ground Control to taxi for departure; we were instructed to taxi but to hold short of [the] runway. As we were making a right turn; I noticed a fast approaching A330 off my left. I verbalized that I was stopping the aircraft to my First Officer; and to my disbelief; I saw the A330 right wing miss us by approximately 30 to 40 ft. The radio congestion was such that we were unable to query Ground Control as to the sequence. After the A330 narrowly missed us; I eventually interjected on the frequency 'Hey Ground; that [A330] just cut us off!'. We didn't immediately receive an answer; but then another Controller came on the frequency and later apologized for the incident.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a near collision on the taxiway with an A330.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight at 23;000 feet; we got a left engine low oil pressure warning message that went away and then came back 4 to 5 times in a short period of time the pressure was fluctuating between 23 and 39 psi.  We ran the QRH and the message went away.  We then brought the left engine back to a power setting of around 65/%. About 5 minutes later during the descent into ZZZ we got the warning message again and again ran the QRH. This time the message didn't go away so we requested priority handling from ATC and decided that in line with the QRH; the oil temp was at an abnormally low temperature compared to the right engine; both being at idle. We performed an inflight engine shut down of the left engine by the QRH. We then proceeded with the single engine approach and landing checklist per the QRH and then the decent and approach checklists. When this first happened; we sent via ACARS to Dispatch and Maintenance about what we were seeing and when it occurred. The second time we let them know that we had requested priority handling and were going to shut the engine down. We proceeded with a single engine approach and landing. We also let the FA (Flight Attendant) know what was going on and what our plan of action was going to be. we landed and stopped on the taxi way and had ARFF take a look at the aircraft. We then proceeded to the gate and off load the passengers. After the aircraft was at the gate I remembered that we were task saturated and forgot to run the landing checklist. We had the gear down and the flaps at the setting required in the QRH checklist.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported low oil pressure indications on the left engine during cruise. The flight crew elected to perform an inflight shut down of the affected engine and continue the descent and approach to original destination airport.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Tower authorized an initial approach to Runway XX with a break to the right over the approach end of the runway and was cleared to land. As I started the right break the engine back fired numerous times and as a result I rolled wings level to maintain my airspeed and inertia in the event of total loss of engine power. This heading took me to the northeast corner of the airport while I continued to consider my landing options. As PIC it was critical; in my opinion; that to continue operational safety; I needed to land as soon as practicable. The tower again cleared me to enter a right down wind for Runway XX and I declined those instructions. I told tower I was going to land on Runway YY which was the closest available. The tower asked if I needed assistance and that opposite runway operations were not authorized. I then said to the tower that I am the one flying the aircraft and that I was going to land on Runway YY. I did not declare an emergency as I was not in immediate threat of death but should have declared a PAN.As an aside there were no immediate traffic conflicts in the immediate are however tower did instruct an inbound flight to remain outside the airport traffic area until we got it sorted out. Minutes later after I landed successfully they did as well.I didn't have time to discuss formalities and proper procedures with the tower. All I wanted was to land on the best available runway and Runway YY was my choice due to its proximity.




Synopsis: Antique military aircraft pilot reported landing opposite direction without proper clearance after his engine backfired several times.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
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 ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About 50 NM south of ZZZ we heard a loud bang on the left engine; and lost both Primary Flight Displays; both MFDs; EICAS Display (ED) 1 and the FMS. We made the decision to monitor the situation and continue. As we continued; we heard another bang on the left engine and once again we lost all screens except ED2. Took a look at the fuel and hydraulic synoptic pages and noticed no abnormalities. I also took a look at the electrical synoptic page and noticed an erratic spikes on the left kVA. We decided to look for the next closest field to land; and chose ZZZ as the closest. At this point we were right on top of it. Upon advising ATC; we heard a third bang; and once again lost all screens except ED2. [Center] gave us direct ZZZ but we couldn't insert in FMS; so we asked for vectors and circled down to ZZZ from FL250. Upon decent; our screens came back on momentarily; and just kept going off and on flickering. I disconnected the Autopilot and flew the visual to 17.

Callback: The reporter believes that the loud bangs were caused by the left generator drive and were not compressor stalls; although maintenance could not duplicate the anomaly on the ground.



Synopsis: CRJ200 First Officer experienced loud banging noises at FL250; apparently coming from the left engine; and lost both Primary Flight Displays; both MFDs; EICAS Display 1 and the FMS. This event repeated two more times before diverting to an alternate airport.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Was cruising along just after leveling off. I believe we were right prior to the waypoint of STYMY when ATC gave us a fix that didn't sound like any on our flight plan. After reviewing the loaded flight plan vs the fixes on our printed release again we didn't see the fix and told ATC it wasn't on our flight plan. Controller replied back saying it was on our flight plan. He then spelled it out for us and we wrote it down to verify and still didn't see it. His spelling was something along the line ET then he would mumble the rest even after we asked again. We again said nothing showing with an ET start on our plan and then he asked us our next fixes and cleared us to ZERBO instead. Overall I believe we were in the right on not accepting a fix not shown in our plan. That was a day of new database so everyone was learning new fixes/routes and Florida was really hectic with all controllers learning the new stuff and shortcuts as it was happening and old habits could have still been showing. No one had said anything more to us while on that frequency on fixes or down the line.




Synopsis: E175 flight crew member reported being cleared to a point that was not on the flight planned route. Reporter mentioned new fixes and routings in Florida possibly contributed to the issue.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 F Executive 21
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I completed a run-up at departure end penalty box and observed an airport vehicle depart the same place. As I was preparing to taxi; a jet called my aircraft identifying by location to request my intentions. I stated 'run up complete but he can start a back taxi.'  I started the taxi to the active runway. He declined in favor of my departure. I called 'taxi and departure Runway X; VFR to the east.' I rolled on to the runway displaced threshold while checking for traffic on final. I observed the jet had not moved but he called and requested if anyone else was inbound to land; to no response. I checked the plane was secured; and after rolling some of the displaced threshold; checked instruments and passengers; and applied full power. After reaching rotation speed; I observed the airport vehicle cross the runway in front of me. It appeared he was playing chicken. I considered rejecting the takeoff but could not be certain the power changes and braking would help avoid the collision. Thankfully the vehicle cleared the runway and I was off the ground moments later.  I think safety can be improved by having ground vehicles at uncontrolled airports stating their intentions. A simple call of 'crossing the active runway' would have improved safety as I could check and delay my takeoff. I called on CTAF during departure that the ground vehicles crossing was 'not good' and another voice agreed. I met the driver later and he was the voice that replied. As pilot in command; I will improve by maintaining situational awareness of aircraft and NORDO ground vehicles. It was a busy time with other traffic and that is a good reminder to double check your aircraft and intended path.




Synopsis: Mooney 20F pilot reported a ground conflict with a vehicle at an non-towered airport.  Reporter suggested airport vehicles should also state their intentions at uncontrolled fields.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ASE Approach has a very bad habit of violating Sector 06's airspace; especially on busy days. Today was a very heavy traffic day; there were continuous EGE departures and arrivals every 5 miles. ASE approach busted our airspace with Aircraft X at 140; called me the D side up for a too late point out. When I wouldn't immediately say point out approved (they only gave a call sign; no CID; and there were data blocks everywhere making it impossible to see) they became belligerent saying he was already in my airspace I needed to approve their point out now! I told them I would not until I made sure it was not going to put aircraft in danger (and it potentially was); they were super angry about that and hung up. This is only one of a LONG list of incidents like this with ASE approach. This is a consistent and habitual issue that must be resolved before someone gets hurt! Between the local time of XA52z-XA59z; ASE approach was observed to have violated our airspace with no attempt at a point out 4 different times with Aircraft Y; Aircraft Z; Aircraft A; and Aircraft B. That is just the 6 minutes of me watching them with an eagle eye. They have caused many close calls with EGE departures and all of us in Area 1 are tired of it.Recurrent training for ASE approach on airspace boundaries and point out procedures. Anything at all to stop this terrible habit from continuing.




Synopsis: ZDV ARTCC Controller reported ASE Approach repeatedly failed to comply with ATC procedures resulted in multiple airspace violations.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We were] listening to Frequency X. Parachuters where announcing on Frequency Y. We did not hear their parachuting activity announcements. NOTAMs were not on FAA Web Site. Parachuting Frequency not found on sectional chart. Parachuting Frequency was not found in the Chart Supplement.


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


Synopsis: C172 flight instructor and student pilot reported sky diving operation was broadcasting on an unknown frequency.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we were being vectored to get established on final; we received an IDG FAULT Caution message; I decided to run the QRH; while we were in a high [workload situation]; lots of communication with ATC as we were being vectored; descended; and slowed; lots of radio chatter caused a breakdown in our communication within the flight deck and that resulted in turning the wrong IDG off; which caused a momentary loss of all AC and subsequent deployment of the RAT; at this point with emergency power only I decided to [request priority handling]; accept the longer runway; and continue to an uneventful landing; after landing we continued to the gate; as normal power had been restored.The cause of this event can be contributed to the fact that we were rushed in completing the QRH in a very busy environment; while being vectored and slowed and while starting to configure for landing.Based on what I experienced; I would not run the QRH that close to the runway for a caution message; in a high [workload situation]; rather I would wait and deal with it on the ground.




Synopsis: Captain reported a failed integrated drive generator on final approach and selected the wrong IDG to off; resulting in a loss of electrical power. The Captain reported asking for priority handling and continued to landing.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ANC.Airport, AK
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ANC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing at PANC; directed to taxi via Taxiway R and TWY U. The weather was very dark with light rain and wet taxiways. As the aircraft approached TWY U; the Captain was focused on finding centerline of TWY U from TWY R. As the aircraft committed to the turn; the First Officer noticed a white Ford van enter TWY U crossing north to south on the access road parallel to TWY R. The First Officer alerted the Captain to the intrusion. He slammed on the brakes and was able to stop the aircraft. As the aircraft was stopping; the First Officer reached up to turn on all landing lights in an attempt to alert the van. After the van cleared to the south; the First Officer alerted Tower to the incident. As we were parking the aircraft; we were able to hear ANC Tower directing security to stop the subject van. This event was caused by an inattentive or negligent driver that failed to yield to an aircraft taxiing on dark; wet night. The drivers around the airport (this driver in particular) need to be reminded about the limited maneuverability of aircraft on the taxiways and the need to be conscientious about yielding to aircraft on taxiways. This is particularly important when heavy aircraft are attempting to taxi on dark; wet (slick) taxiways.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a near collision with a van during taxi at ANC.