elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise; Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise approximately 20 NM prior to top of descent; we received a 'TANK3 FUEL QTY LO' Level 1 alert with fuel quantities of 6700/6700/6700.  As per QRH; we managed our fuel situation by manually transferring fuel to from Tank 1 to Tank 3.  After transferring 1000 pounds of fuel from Tank 1 to Tank 3; we received a 'TNK3 TIP TRAPPED' Level 1 alert.  At this time; our fuel quantity indications were 5800/6700/7100 with 5100 pounds now trapped in the right outboard (#3) fuel tank.  We then cross-fed the #3 engine from TNK2.  We proceeded directly to the ILS final.  As we descended through 13;000 feet; the system that allows fuel to transfer to from the tip tank to the main tank unstuck and the systems became normal.  We opted to leave the Fuel System Controller in Manual and not change any configuration.  Upon acquiring the field visually; we proceeded directly the final approach fix on the ILS and landed uneventfully.  Crash search and Rescue (CFR) vehicles followed us to the gate.


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


Synopsis: An MD-11 alerted TNK3 FUEL QTY LO level 1 which resulted in a trapped fuel alert. Following manual fuel transfers in the descent for landing; the system returned to normal with all fuel usable.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: An A320 departed Runway 25 from LAX on the LOOP SIX departure (non-RNAV SID). A B737-700 departed Runway 24 simultaneously with the A320. The LOOP SIX departure has Runway 25 departures; 'Climb heading 250 to cross SMO VOR/DME R-160 at or below 3;000 [feet]; then turn left heading 235 expect RADAR vectors.' Having received this information long after the event; I don't recall having any issue with this departure. However; upon reviewing the replay; I noticed the following: On the replay display; the centerlines of both runways are displayed; which are not displayed on my scope and it appears that the A320 did turn north of the 250 degree heading for approximately a mile prior to turning to his 235 degree heading. Having worked in the area for 15 years; I am used to occasionally seeing an erroneous RADAR hit that makes it appear the aircraft are off course having the next hit show that the aircraft is indeed in the correct position. Also; the display I reviewed was at a 10 mile range while I look at a 33 mile range on my scope so to see the slight turn north is very difficult. If anything; this was a pilot deviation as indicated by the turn north of the aircraft. The best way to prevent this from happening again is to convene a work group of controllers from LAX Tower and SCT to review and rewrite the departure procedures off of the LAX airport. Possibly preventing simultaneous departures from the 2 complexes; or having the Tower ensure the aircraft on non-RNAV SID's make the turn prior to switching the aircraft to SCT.




Synopsis: SCT Controller was notified of a loss of separation that had been discovered during a post event review long after the fact; the reporter claiming the tools available to the Controller are not as precise as those used during the post event reviews.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After deferring an AHRS B failure; the aircraft was scheduled to return to base to undergo maintenance. Prior to taxi out; the airplane was configured to have the co-pilot's side PFD utilize the pilot's side ADAHRS computer. Upon takeoff and just prior to passing through 1;000 AGL; both pilot and co-pilot PFDs failed; displaying ATT FAIL; HDG FAIL and various red Xs on altitude and airspeed indications. There were; however; no abnormalities on the systems MFD or the situational awareness MFD. We decided to return to our departure airport. We advised Tower that we required a precautionary landing due to an avionics issue and would need to keep the airport in sight. On entering left downwind; both PFDs returned to normal. Turning base; both PFDs reverted to failure status. Tower then issued a landing clearance and the before landing checklist was then completed. After turning onto final for Runway 4L; both PFDs returned to normal. A normal landing was made and the aircraft returned to the ramp uneventfully.I recommend the aircraft not be flown in IMC whenever an ADAHRS computer is inoperative.




Synopsis: A PC-12 flight crew departing on a maintenance ferry in marginal weather returned to their departure airport when the one operative ADAHRS failed intermittently shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While being vectored to join ILS 27R; the aircraft/crew failed to capture/join the LOC. We then turned back toward the LOC and realized the #2 NAV had the LOC frequency in STBY. The crew opted to break off approach. Crew completed Descent Checklist; re-briefed approach; and flew the ILS 27R. During the next flight; the crew noticed that the #2 NAV would switch from STBY to ACTIVE without depressing the TFR switch. A logbook entry was made noting the discrepancy and a Mechanic was briefed. I am certain we properly briefed the approach prior to flying the procedure. What is not known is if the #2 NAV switched to the STBY frequency or if the crew made a verification error. In the future; I will try to crosscheck the frequency selected while on the base vector.


Second narrative: It is unknown if the localizer frequency was originally selected or remained in STBY the whole time. Double check the frequency. All operations were normal up to that point. There were no extra distractions.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew overshoots the LOC course during approach and discovers the #2 NAV has the ILS frequency in the STBY position. A go around is initiated and the second attempt is successful. On a subsequent flight leg it is discovered that the #2 NAV radio could switch from ACTIVE to STBY without depressing the TFR switch.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: THA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: CTAF THA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was approaching the airport from the east; an airport unfamiliar to me. There were 3-4 planes in the pattern; a helicopter hovering; and skydiving activity over the airport. I was listening to CTAF and making position reports starting about 10 miles out. The traffic was initially using Runway 24 and changed to [Runway] 36 as I was approaching the airport about 4-5 miles out. I set up for a midfield cross and left downwind approach to runway 36. At 1-2 miles out; I heard on the CTAF that jumpers were [near]; but I could not see them. As I crossed near the approach end of Runway 36 at 1;500 feet to join the downwind for Runway 36; I saw the skydivers at 2 o'clock high. I immediately began a left turn away from the jumpers to join the left downwind to Runway 36; completed the pattern and landed uneventfully. After I landed; 2 members of the jump team pulled me aside and informed me that I was too close to the skydivers. They educated me on how to operate more safely at airports with skydivers; something I had never encountered before. They suggested to not fly over the field when there is jumping activity and keep a wide approach pattern away from the airport until landing and to do the same on takeoff. In retrospect; a right-hand pattern to Runway 36 or a left base to Runway 24 (planned originally) would have kept me safely away from the confines of the airport until on final approach and landing. I will keep these issues in mind and heed their suggestions whenever operating in the vicinity of skydiving operations in the future.




Synopsis: GA pilot entering the traffic pattern at a non-towered airport reported a near miss with skydivers.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After responding to a TCAS RA that came within 100 FT of the airplane; we subsequently descended below a restriction of 11;000 FT at RVEEE. I was a little shaken because of the closeness of the RA. If I would have regained my composure as the pilot not flying; the event may have been avoided.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported a near miss and took evasive action from an unidentified aircraft at 11;000 FT on the HOU KIDDZ ONE RNAV Arrival.
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Airport Personnel
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: Other after event
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight Service won't allow a private airport to publish NOTAMs. This makes no sense since most private airports allow GA public access. ZZZ is in the process of conducting runway repairs to XXL-XXR from [Date]. During this period we've had two incidents with aircraft attempting to land on a paved runway with personnel from the asphalt company on the runway. Luckily both pilots were able to see and avoid the personnel and divert to another runway. Both pilots contacted me afterwards; upset that airport management hadn't filed NOTAMs about the runway closure. Two airport personnel attempted to contact both the FAA FSDO and Flight Service and were told they won't process NOTAMs for private airports. SAFETY should know no boundaries especially from bureaucracy. For a pilot to file a flight plan from ZZZ1 to ZZZ and to be briefed by Flight Service to include NOTAMs only to find a hazard to his flight that should have been relayed to him and could have been!




Synopsis: Airport Manager reported he was advised by the FAA that they would not publish NOTAMs for his private airport.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Student was flying the aircraft. On about a 3 mile final for 9L at ZZZ the aircraft yawed to the left; began beeping and showed both a Left ECU A failure and a Right ECU B failure at the same time. Instructor took controls of the aircraft and determined left engine failed. Requested priority handling feathered the left engine and made a safe landing. After exiting off taxiway; an attempt was made to restart the left engine. Engine started back up but both ECU failures remained. Taxied back to parking.




Synopsis: DA-42 instructor pilot reported left engine flameout on 3 mile final.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Weather was all around the area but not on the field. Weather was 10 miles ahead on the departure. We expected deviation around it because it looked severe. After contacting departure in the initial climbout we asked for deviation left or right. The controller said 'unable.' The radar returns were red and looked severe. 'Unable' was not a good enough option. Looking outside the front windscreen we saw black cumulous type thunderstorm clouds to back up the radar. ATC was very busy and too busy to argue. We had to make a decision. We decided; for safety of the aircraft and passengers to deviate slightly to the left to avoid the brunt of the storm. After going about 0.4 or 0.5 miles left we were told by ATC that we looked off course. We acknowledged our deviation; and were told to get ready to copy a number for a possible pilot deviation. We had no ride report information or the ability to get a word in and ask for one. We made a decision based on what we thought was safest; with the information we had at the time. We decided to not put the lives of people at risk flying through a severe storm at a low altitude. We had no TCAS events at all.The event was due to us expecting deviation around weather and not being given enough information to work with. We should have been informed of ride reports and weather ahead. Airborne weather radar does not give reliable enough returns to see the total severity of a storm from the ground.Close the departure; issue vectors; or tell us ride reports or how other aircraft are getting around it before takeoff. These are all things that are provided at other ATC facilities so running a normal departure sequence into weather; we expected to get vectors like all the other aircraft ahead of us.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported deviating for weather without ATC clearance.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
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: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were given vectors to join localizer for Runway XX on a heading of 080. Once on assigned heading we were cleared for the ILS Runway XX. The Captain (pilot not flying); noting a 'NAVAID UNTUNEABLE' MSG in the scratch pad of the MCDU said; 'We're gonna have to go-around.' At that point the aircraft was at 3;000 FT; heading 080 degrees; at an airspeed of 180 KIAS with Flaps 18. The aircraft was bouncing around pretty good in moderate turbulence. I (pilot flying) initiated the go-around procedure by pressing the go-around button; calling for Flaps 13 and starting a climb. I missed ATC's call shortly thereafter to maintain 3;000 FT on the go-around. At approx 4;200 feet ATC asked if we needed any assistance and that we were told to maintain 3;000 FT. The aircraft reached an altitude of approximately 4;800 FT before returning to the assigned altitude of 3;000 FT. ATC then gave us a new clearance for vectors for the ILS Runway XR. Once again the Captain noted a 'NAVAID UNTUNEABLE' message on the MCDU. However; on this approach the localizer captured and we were able to successfully shoot the ILS approach.This incident highlights the importance of verifying the localizer; as well as paying close attention to ATC go-around instructions; especially during IMC and/or unusual situations. In training in the simulator we are always in a position that we must climb during the go-around/missed approach ('positive rate'/'gear up'). Since I don't perform many actual go-arounds (this was my second in almost 6 yrs); in this instance I immediately reverted to 'training mentality' and started a climb. Lesson learned: during future go-arounds I will assess the situation to determine whether or not a climb is necessary.




Synopsis: A B717 crew executed a go-around after a MCDU NAVAID UNTUNEABLE alert and on the go-around were cleared to 3;000 FT but climbed to 4;800 FT. The second approach was successful after the LOC frequency was verified.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise at FL410 I noticed the oil pressure gauge was jumping between 30 psi to 55 psi. A few minutes later the right oil pressure gauge started to jump as well between 38 psi to 55 psi. Simultaneously with the right oil pressure gauge we got an electrical Look Up Light and noticed that both 'BATT 2' and 'GEN 2' lights were illuminated and realized we lost generator Number 2. Generator 2 gauge showed 0 while Generator 1 showed a spike up-and-down between 60 Amps to 300 Amps. It kept fluctuating up and down for the remainder of the flight. I declared an emergency and asked for the nearest suitable airport for landing. Upon touchdown the left oil pressure gauge showed 25 psi so on the taxi in I shut it down.




Synopsis: The pilots of a Hawker 800 observed both engine oil pressure gauges fluctuating; and then noticed that one of the Generators had failed. They declared an emergency and diverted to a suitable airport.