elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO; Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While 'descending via' on EMZOH2 into OAK; ATC vectored us off arrival and assigned various speed; heading; and altitudes.  Altitude assignments; not crossing restrictions; were challenging in icing conditions while complying with the MEL for a wired open engine anti-ice valve that requires a minimum of 60 percent N1 on that engine.  Again; they were all complied with and ATC said nothing. After quite a while and while level at 7;000 feet; ATC issued us a 'direct to' LOGHN clearance and 'resume the arrival.'  No altitude revision was issued; including 'descend via.'  A Controller or frequency change occurred and at approximately three miles from LOGHN; the new Controller asked if we were 'descending via' the arrival.  We replied that we were rejoining the arrival; but our last clearance was to 'maintain' 7;000 feet.  He seemed confused and issued a heading and a decent.  Nothing else was mentioned and there was no deviation at all. We were at 7;000 feet at LOGHN and the cross at that fix; had we been cleared to descend via; was 6;000A; above 6;000 feet.  I guess this report is just a precaution against any unknown issue that ATC may have.  I feel that it was a non-event; however.


Second narrative: Aircraft had an MEL for anti-ice valve wired open; had to maintain 60 percent N1 on it while in icing conditions.  While descending on the EMZOH2 Arrival into OAK; we were given a heading off the arrival and told to stop the descent at 7;000 feet.  We were then given direct LOHGN and to resume the arrival.  Then we were switched to final Approach Control. At LOHGN at 7; 000 feet; ATC wanted to know our altitude.  We responded with 7;000 feet assigned.  He said no; we should be descending on the arrival.  He then gave us an altitude to descend to.  We joined final and landed in OAK.


Synopsis: Pilots reported of being taken off an arrival; vectored; and given an altitude to maintain. ATC then gave the crew a direct to and maintain an altitude. The crew was issued a frequency change and the new controller wanted to know why they were not descending on the arrival. The crew replied they were given direct to a point and to maintain an altitude. ATC was confused.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JZI.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Performing a biennial flight review; we were performing pattern work to a touch and go. On mid field downwind; Aircraft Y announced (exact verbiage): 'Aircraft Y; midfield left downwind for a right 45 degree; Runway 09' (I don't even know what that means?) As I was also midfield downwind; I became very concerned. I requested DME to field from Aircraft Y; but he responded; 'midfield downwind'. Again; as I was also midfield downwind; I announced breaking out of the pattern; and since I was in a high wing airplane; I elected to descend from 1;000 feet to 700 feet and break out away from the airfield. In reality; Aircraft Y was due north of JZI for Runway 9; so he was not downwind; but angling 45 degree to arc to final. What he was calling downwind was actually 5 NM north angling toward the airfield. As a result of my turning away from the field; it placed the two airplanes at a head on scenario; with me a couple of hundred feet lower and offset to the east approximately 1/2 mile.This airfield has heavy corporate jet traffic mixed in with light airplanes and instruction. Understandably; the corporate traffic does not adhere to traffic pattern procedures; but tend to fly straight ins and modified patterns to expedite arrivals. However; all this conflict could have been avoided if Aircraft Y's pilot would have not 'pretended' to be flying a standard pattern; but announced his actual position. BRA (Bearing; Range; and Altitude) would have reduced the midair collision potential significantly instead of flying a 45 degree to the field and calling himself downwind. I have flown [military fighters]; worked for a major airline; and flown light airplanes for [many] years: this was in the top 5 most dangerous non-combat situations I have been in. It was all due to intentional misinformation by a corporate jet trying to make it look like he was abiding by the rules.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported an induced airborne conflict with a corporate jet due to inaccurate position reports while inbound to the airport.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On ROBUC3 STAR into Boston Logan; ATC gave late descend via instruction; FMS failed to descend aircraft; we descended then in Vertical Speed mode to try and make PROVI intersection at 11;000 feet. We were crossing at 12;000 feet when ATC issued a turn and a lower altitude. Complicating the situation was a wake turbulence encounter and frequency saturation.We did our best under the circumstances. In the future I will manually descend when well inside the STAR and issued a late descend via clearance.


Second narrative: On arrival into Boston Logan during the Captain's approach briefing I was given a descent via the Robuc3 arrival. During the descent I encountered significant wake turbulence. I immediately disconnected the autopilot and informed the Captain of the situation. After the aircraft was stabilized we transferred controls but due to the disruption we were unable to make the next crossing restriction at PROVI. We were approximately 1000 feet above the altitude. The controller issued instructions for a vector off of the arrival; we complied and the flight continued without event.


Synopsis: CE-560XL flight crew reported failing to make a crossing restriction on descent into BOS; citing a late clearance and a wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower 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)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: On vector to visual approach Runway XX; ZZZ; Approach provided traffic outbound to south at 3;500 feet. Approach and Tower were combined and appear to underestimate our closure rate on the vector to join final as visual backed by ILS Runway XX. Other traffic (Aircraft Y) was monitored through all stages by PM TCAS display which was active the entire flight. PM and PF visually sighted traffic and paused descent whilst turning inbound for final. After this action first TA then RA triggered with monitor VS and arc guidance to maintain alt; which was action already active. Normal approach and landing once visually clear of traffic.Cause - Poor vector and then visual approach clearance whilst traffic outbound in approach display and conflicting altitude.More ATC resources; combined approach and tower may have been a factor.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an airborne conflict attributed to the Local Controller working more than one combined position.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing; I made a sudden stop of our aircraft because I perceived imminent contact with a regional carrier aircraft crossing our path from left to right.  Flight attendants #1 and #2 requested to be removed due to contact with service carts.  Returned to gate and flight attendants deplaned under supervision of medical personnel.  If flight attendants were required to be in their seats at all times when aircraft was taxiing; they would not have been hurt.


Second narrative: During taxi out Captain abruptly stopped aircraft when he noticed a commuter aircraft to the left.  Flight attendants #1 and #2 advised Captain they were injured.  We returned to gate where flight attendants were removed by medical personnel.  Brake aircraft less aggressively if possible while avoiding an aircraft.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew experiences a ground conflict with another aircraft crossing left to right and the Captain stops abruptly injuring two flight attendants.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On my approved flight student pilot of 150 nm with 3 full stops. Everything was great and was planning on landing Runway XX that had been temporarily closed due to crane being up in the air. I was told I had to land on Runway XY which posed a 70 degree crosswind at 9 kts. which is outside my minimums by 1 kt. However; I decided to make approach. Upon touch down; I did not like the position of the plane so I full powered back up and did a touch and go. I then noted I should get fuel and was not sure if the wind would calm back down at ZZZ. I decided the closest place to land with gas that also had a runway that aligned with the wind was ZZZ1.Although I was not approved for ZZZ1; I have been there 6+ times sitting in the passenger seat with my good friend's plane. I was familiar with the airport and decided to land there and get fuel; re-collect; and then head back to ZZZ when the weather calmed down. After re-fuel; I checked weather conditions and they were better. I headed out of ZZZ1 and back to ZZZ; when calling into Tower; they advised that the ATIS I received was actually low of what they were reading and their reading on the winds was higher (and outside my minimums) however; the winds were perfectly aligned with the 'Closed' runway. I inquired about why the runway was closed and they said it was only for another hour; and it was because a crane 300 feet tall was 3 miles away.I knew that I would be nowhere close to that crane and decided as PIC (Pilot in Command) that the safest option was to land on Runway XX regardless that the Tower said they could not authorize the landing and that I would be landing at my own risk. Ultimately I made it back with a perfect landing and safe. The increase and change in wind direction was unforecast and after my long flight had changed enough to be outside my minimums.




Synopsis: C172 student pilot reported that they elected to land on a closed runway due to unforecast winds that exceeded personal minimums.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SZL.Airport, MO
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SZL
ATC / advisory: TRACON SZL
Second aircraft: Military Bomber
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying as a passenger with a low time pilot; who had asked for my company to help him learn how to fly [to] SUS; so that he could go to see his son on the weekends. We had made our trip to SUS and were on the return flight; and utilizing flight following services. As with most low time pilots; he was having trouble holding his altitude at 4;500 feet MSL; and I was working with him on the importance of maintaining altitude. Approximately 8-10 miles West of Whiteman AFB we received the following transmission from Whiteman Approach: 'Aircraft X; traffic alert; 5 miles; 11 o'clock; 5;000 FT; heavy; caution wake turbulence!' 'Aircraft; additional traffic; 6 miles; 11 o'clock; 4;000 FT; heavy; caution wake turbulence.' Quickly looking to our left we saw coming almost directly at us two heavy aircraft; one just above us and one just below. In very quick succession the first 'Heavy' passed directly over our nose at 5;000 FT so that we could look up and see the undercarriage; and at almost the same time a second aircraft passed directly beneath us so that we could look down onto the top of the aircraft. As I look back on the incident; while the pilot thought this was 'cool' the more I reflect; I think it was dangerous and stupid. Here I am flying with a pilot having trouble holding his altitude and [Approach] puts two aircraft at 500 FT above and below us. The bigger problem to me is the wake turbulence issue. If we had gotten into the wake from the aircraft passing overhead; I shudder to think of the consequences to our little aircraft. I am absolutely certain that the aircraft could have easily been vectored in order to avoid this situation; and I am thinking this was somebody wanting to do a little showboating; but in hindsight the consequences could have been deadly. There was absolutely nothing that we could do to avoid the situation in the short time from the warning until the event.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of while under flight following the Approach Control issues traffic of two heavy aircraft; one above and one below his aircraft. Pilot is concerned about wake turbulence and later wishes they had been vectored around traffic.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CXO.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: At KCXO Airport (Conroe-North Houston); we were about to launch; and we were checking to see where the base of the Houston Class B airspace was; so we would know when we could accelerate from 200 kts to 250. The Houston Class B Airspace chart showed that we were at Lone Star Executive Airport; rather than Conroe North Houston Airport. I reported this discrepancy to Jeppesen and to my company's Flight Technical Programs Manager. Our Flight Programs Technical Manager found that Lone Star Executive Airport had changed its name to Conroe North Houston. The Jeppesen Airspace chart needs to be updated with the current name of the Conroe North Houston airport. This is especially important because of the poor choice of the new airport name -- there already is a North Houston airport; and it would be easy to mistake North Houston Airport for Conroe North Houston Airport.




Synopsis: Commercial fixed wing First Officer reported the Jeppesen Airspace chart needs to be updated with the current name of the Conroe North Houston airport.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORBB.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ORBB
ATC / advisory: Center ORBB
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Suspected GPS jamming approaching the Iraq-Turkey border (approaching waypoint DARIX) -- N3700.8/E04336.6 at FL 340. Event lasted approximately 3 minutes. Suspected GPS jamming from outside source.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported experiencing three minutes of GPS jamming while flying at FL340 in Iraqi airspace.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UNV.Tower, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Tower UNV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending on visual to Runway 24. Flying north over mountain range after being cleared for the visual. Passing through 4000-ish down to 3100 (altitude at FAF) and GPWS alerted for terrain; pull up. It was dusk; we could see the outline of the terrain; and didn't expect the alert. Captain disconnected AP; complied with the commands; and then continued the descent to the FAF/Approach.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported climbing in response to an EGPWS terrain warning on a dusk visual approach to UNV airport.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E F11
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During a routine single engine training flight; the Left engine would not restart in flight. Starter would not turn the engine at all. The right engine was hot and approaching max CHT (Cylinder Head Temperature). An engine-cooling descent was started after the decision was made to discontinue starting and return to [departure airport] single engine because maintaining altitude on only the Right engine would result in possible Right engine overheating. The position was 7;000 feet; 14 NM [from departure airport]. [Pilot receiving instruction] continued flying and instructor conducted checklists and coordinated with ATC. ATC contact was made at 4;000 feet and crew requested direct to the numbers RNWY 9L. Instructor pilot conducted single engine landing.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot reported being unable to restart the left engine in a PA-44 after conducting single engine training with a student. A successful single engine approach and landing was made.