elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Possible Pilot Deviation is what the controller called it when he gave me a number to call while in cruise. That's a phrase no pilot wants to hear; but I was mulling over our departure from APA when we got the call.For our departure the weather was great; and we had a light aircraft. Our clearance said to 'climb via the SID'. Or so I thought. While putting our [passengers] onboard for our Part 91 flight; my first officer was in the cockpit setting up the radios and getting our ATC clearance.While starting engines; my first officer briefed me on the clearance. It was easy; cleared as filed; using the BAYLR3 departure SID; and we were cleared to 'climb via the SID'. A review of the SID showed that we were to climb on a 170 heading until 6400 feet MSL; then continue climb heading 170 or as assigned by ATC. Then; expect radar vectors to BAYLR; then on depicted route to BOBBA. Maintain FL230 or filed lower altitude. We had filed for FL400. Easy. No stops to FL230; right? Apparently not!My first officer later said that he has heard 'Climb via the SID except maintain 8000 feet'. When I got the brief; I was told to 'Climb via the SID'. An obvious breakdown in crew communication. As we were climb towards 8000 feet; I noticed the altitude alerter turn yellow and I said 'Why is 8000 feet in there?' By then it was too late to level off at 8000 feet.I got on the radio and told Departure Control that we were unable to stop at 8000 feet; and could we hold 9000 feet? I was informed that there was Pilatus traffic at 9000 feet and at that point I knew that I had made a significant Altitude Deviation.So; what can be learned? In future I will make it a habit to ask one more time (before taking the runway) 'What altitude are we stopping at?' I already know both pilots should be in on the hearing of the ATC clearance. That's a hard one to follow in Part 91 where the pilots are also dealing with the passengers' needs. But; I'll try harder.


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


Synopsis: C560 flight crew reported climbing through their cleared altitude departing APA airport.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending on the arrival; the Captain noticed smoke and sparks coming from the transponder panel. He instructed me to don my oxygen mask and continue flying. The Captain got us priority handling and a high speed descent. We flew direct to the IAF; intercepted the ILS and landed without incident. I have no idea how to prevent something like this. This is the only instance of fire and smoke I have had in thirty years.


Second narrative: Shortly after vacating FL400 smoke with sparks began pouring from the transponder. Immediately turned the transponder off and the sparks stopped immediately and smoke slowly diminished. Donned oxygen masks and requested priority handling direct to the IAF for ILS with high speed descent. We were cleared as requested but proceeding direct to IAF took us off the arrival so my focus became ensuring terrain separation. Flight continued safely and landed without further incident. Having the situation under control; determined there was no need to declare an emergency; however afterwards I realized that declaring an emergency would have provided everything I had requested from ATC and more. In the future I will not hesitate to declare an emergency.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew experiences smoke and sparks emanating from the transponder during descent. The transponder is turned off and the smoke begins to subside. An uneventful landing ensues.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Duchess 76
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Pitch Change Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While en-route I was conducting a Multi Engine Instructor training flight with a student/ single engine instructor. While en-route; I simulated the failure of the left engine of the aircraft. Upon simulating the failure of the student feathered and secured the left engine. Upon completing the failed engine task; we began the in air restart checklist. Upon completing the restart checklist; the left propeller failed to un-feather. I believe the un-feathering accumulators failed to supply adequate pressure to un-feather the prop. I began the re-start without accumulators checklist; and attempted to start the engine by using the magnetos. The engine failed to start after three attempts trying this method. During the restart procedure; I performed a 100 KT descent at least 3 times in an attempt to windmill the engine. Due to these descents; I was now around 2;500 FT MSL. Due to the low altitude and the failure to restart the engine; I asked for landing clearance at our destination airport. Tower Controllers assigned me a straight in approach to Runway 18. I was set up on a 6 mile straight in final for 18 at the time of the call to the Tower. I landed; and taxied the aircraft to parking without incident. Upon returning to the flight school; we were able to get the engine to restart and the prop to un-feather. No emergency was declared in statements with the Control Tower; however; after landing I saw 7700 on the face of the transponder. I believe my student mistakenly 'squawked' 7700 while I was telling Tower about our situation.




Synopsis: A BE76 Instructor; unable to unfeather a propeller after an engine failure simulation; landed without declaring an emergency even though the student pilot entered 7700 in the transponder.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MHT.Airport, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C MHT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other post flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While researching for a new drone that could be used for aerial photography I came across information regarding operating drones per Part 107 of the FARs. I am filing the NASA report because a few weeks earlier I had operated a small drone in an open field inside the Manchester Class C airspace. Although several miles from the airport; I was unaware at the time of the airspace restrictions. The toy drone I was using at the time weighed less then what is required to register (less than 55lbs) and did not fly more than +-50 feet AGL for very short test flights of a minute or less but its operation was within the Class C airspace boundary as later seen on a Sectional Chart. Looking to learn from this oversight; and as a Part 61 pilot; the incident led me to complete the course on the FAA Wings site 'Part 107 Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (small UAS)'. Following completion of the course my application for a Remote Pilot Certificate was signed by a local flight instructor and I was given a temporary Remote Pilot Certificate. With the new certificate in hand and knowledge gained from the Wings course I am now in a better position to correctly operate a UAS in the National Airspace.




Synopsis: UAV operator became aware of FAR Part 107 violation after flying the UAV in MHT Class C airspace.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HDO.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear; 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZHU
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Landing Runway 26 Using Visual approach guidance from GTN 650(Garmin Navigation/Display). No glideslope guidance was provided by the GTN. I crossed what appeared to be the threshold with very faded marking in significant turbulence. I taxied to the ramp without incident. Only after reviewing the track log from foreflight on google earth did I realize I may have actually landed on the displaced threshold. I believe better markings on the displaced threshold would help prevent this in the future. In addition; a more positive identification of runway markings on my part and a go around would have prevented this event. Contributing was a runway change from our planned arrival to Runway 35R due to changing winds.




Synopsis: A pilot reported they landed on the displaced threshold due to insufficient runway markings at HDO airport.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight planned via the HAWKZ2 arrival. At FL350; weight 139.2 at T/D; Wind 277/70; DESC FORECAST winds loaded; local altimeter loaded; Cost Index 45 and Descent speed .78/280 per the flight plan. Shortly after beginning descent with Autothrottles armed speed slowed 20 KTS. Thrust levers manually advanced to 50% N1 to stay on speed while descending on path. 45-50% N1 was required until HAWKZ intersection to stay on speed. Quartering headwind had decreased to 24 KTS at FL240 and below. Vertical rate of descent was 1;900 fpm the entire descent. ATIS stated ILS 34L in use which was loaded in FMC prior to T/D. Between HAWKZ and LIINE we were assigned the ILS 34C with the SONDR transition. ILS 34C with SONDR transition entered into FMC. Immediately Vertical bearing showed we were 1;200 FT high and commanded speed dropped to 250 from 270 KIAS. Approaching FOOTT we requested direct to the mall for the visual approach stating we did not want to continue the arrival. Our request was granted. Our workload was significantly increased dealing with trying to get back on path regain the correct airspeed etc. This arrival is neither fuel efficient nor does it reduce our workload. It increases the workload. The new RNAV arrivals into SEA have multiple waypoints with crossing restrictions and speed constraints. These arrivals create task saturation and lack of situational awareness for both pilots monitoring the path and speed on the arrival. ATC changes to the arrival create further complications as the path and speed are affected. These new RNAV arrivals are a safety risk.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain experiences difficulties complying with the new HAWKZ2 arrival to SEA.
Date: 202011
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There is no social distancing being enforced at ZZZ lobby and people are at risk of contracting COVID-19 and most importantly our employees are being exposed day in and day out. The company is not doing enough to protect us from contracting this virus.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported concerns regarding the lack of social distancing in the airport lobby area.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were on short final landing runway 12 in Miami. The first officer was flying. MIA tower then cleared a heavy B777 for takeoff from runway 8R. Surface winds were approximately 050/10. Nearing the runway and seconds from flaring; our aircraft experienced tremendous turbulence associated from the takeoff thrust used by the departing B777 on runway 8R. The First Officer handled the significant changes in pitch/power well and managed to make a normal landing on runway 12.The turbulence we experienced was associated to the B777's takeoff thrust - it was not wake turbulence. The crosswind probably played a role in blowing it closer to our flight path. Had it been any worse we likely would have had to execute a go-around. Are there any minimum separation standards for landing aircraft and departing heavy aircraft from intersecting runways? Something perhaps to look at.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported 'tremendous turbulence' from jet wash while landing on Runway 12 at MIA that was associated with a B777 departure on Runway 8R. Runway 8R and Runway 12 are close enough that the runway centerlines intersect near the runway thresholds.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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 Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cleared to descend RIIVR2 arrival and cleared for the ILS 24R approach at LAX. [We] received erroneous LOC indication on MFD (indicated on LOC Course) with no indication on PFD. We were on a heading of 240; ATC instructed us to turn to a 260 heading to join the [Runway] 24R localizer and we complied. ATC asked that we confirm the LOC frequency and we did. ATC turned us an additional 10 degrees and we used the SDU only for LOC and glide slope guidance in VMC conditions. The event went with no disruption and nothing was mentioned from ATC. It's unclear why the ILS course deviation was not displayed on the PFD.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: While flying the LAX Runway 24R ILS; a BE-400XP LOC MFD indication was erroneous and there was no indication on the PFD. Conditions were VMC so the crew used SDU for LOC and glide slope information.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IWA.Tower, AZ
Aircraft: Cessna 340/340A
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types

Narrative: After receiving [flight] following with center; and in contact with PHX approach; I was descending for landing at CHD. When I reported airport in sight approach terminated radar coverage and said to contact CHD tower. Upon contacting the tower I was told to contact IWA tower for clearance through their airspace. Doing so IWA said I was already in their airspace. There was nothing said about any other aircraft in the area; I don't understand why approach did not hand me off to IWA Tower.




Synopsis: Cessna 340 pilot is instructed by Approach Control to call CHD Tower; however; the CHD Controller re-directs the pilot to call IWA for permission to cross IWA airspace. Pilot entered IWA airspace before contacting the tower.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MDW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Taxiway P is not correctly annotated on the MDW 10-9. This was my first exposure to the reconfigured Taxiway P at MDW. I was not even aware it was previously under construction. The intersection with Taxiway N is now in a different location. The Captain was familiar with the change so we didn't have a problem; except for a short while I thought he was making a wrong turn.Construction does not happen overnight so how a taxiway change does not make it in our publications is baffling. The same thing happened in DAL during construction there a year or two ago and the 10-9 was inaccurate for a long period of time. We are likely to experience the same thing soon in BWI as the taxiway configurations are changing right now. Back in the day of paper Jeppesen; we had yellow pages to depict construction phases; closures; and reconfiguration. Why do we not have those with the digital product? Why is there such poor attention to detail and poor quality in these Jeppesen products? Taxiway N in MDW has two Hot Spots right where this new Taxiway P intersects. One would think; in the interest of safety; that it would be a priority for the 10-9 to be accurate.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that MDW airport taxiways are not correctly charted during construction.