elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight to remote forestry site; weather [was] clear visibility 10 miles; intended flight 78 NM; 26 gallon needed for flight. Fuel on board 55 gallons; fuel burn 26 gallons per hour for aircraft. Departed [and] noted broken ceiling 900-1;000 FT cruise altitude. [At] 1;500 FT noted extensive cloud/fog cover below on route of flight [and] was unable too maintain visual with ground. [I] elected to return to point of departure. Deteriorating conditions were encountered at about 40 minutes from departure. Checked weather at [a nearby airport]; showed broken at 1;200 FT. Conditions overcast and deteriorating on arrival. After conversing with ATC/Tower I elected to declare an emergency due to lowering fuel state and the need to descend through the clouds. The helicopter is VFR and I am a non-instrument rated pilot. I descended through the clouds breaking out at about 1;000 FT AGL; landed without further incident.




Synopsis: A VFR-rated helicopter pilot reported he chose to declare an emergency and descend through the clouds when he was caught above an overcast.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SYR.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were dispatched with MEL 34-61-01 for dual FMS database expiration. The MEL specifies we could not accept RNAV/GPS approaches. The NOTAMS for SYR stated that ILS 28 LOC/GP and ILS 10 GP Out of Service. When we arrived at Syracuse; we were told that the entire ILS system was inoperative. Tower vectored us for a visual. On the second attempt we saw the runway and began a descent to 1;400 feet MSL / 1;000 feet AGL. When we reached 1;000 feet the warning horn sounded. We lowered the gear and landed without further incident. The Captain requested a takeoff alternate from Dispatch for the return flight. The threat began when an aircraft with outdated FMS databases was dispatched to an airport that required an alternate and had limited approaches. The ambiguous NOTAM compounded the threat. We also did not fully brief the visual which most likely lead to the gear horn warning. A more thorough review and request for clarification of the NOTAM by the pilots and dispatch would most likely have prevented this situation. Descending to 1;100 feet AGL would also have been the better course of action given the sensitivity of the radio altimeter.




Synopsis: CRJ200 First Officer reports being dispatched with both FMS's on MEL due to expired databases. The destination airport glideslope is out of service but upon arrival it is found the entire ILS is out of service and only a visual approach is possible a 1;000 foot ceiling. Two attempts are required and on the second attempt the landing gear is forgotten until reminded by the GPWS.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff we noticed an odor in the cockpit.  Thinking it might be the ENG ANT-ICE we continued flying the SID.  (We could not turn it off because of icing conditions). About 7;000 ft. the FA's (Flight Attendants) called the cockpit telling us they smelt it too. After talking to Dispatch; Maintenance Operations Manager and the FA's we decided to return to ZZZ. The odor lasted all the way back to the gate until Eng shut down. At the gate APU air was then used and was odorless.A Faulty Aircraft System causing the odor. Prevention would be an aircraft design/maintenance issue.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a fume event during departure climb. After trouble shooting and conferring with Dispatch; Maintenance and also flight attendants crew executed an air return due to the persistent fumes.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
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: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X - On DATE;  Flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1; made a priority landing due to it being an overweight landing by about 1;500 lbs over max landing weight and a fuel system Fault problem. Landing at ZZZ2.Fuel system Fault caused by the Left Aft Aux tank failed to transfer to center tank.  Preformed ECAM procedure; called company Dispatch and Company Maintenance to help trouble shoot; but was unable to get fuel out of Aux tank. Myself; my First Officer; Dispatch and Maintenance all agreed best action was to land at ZZZ2; overweight if needed; to get repairs and for better care of passengers.Priority handling was requested with ATC; which is called for in our Company Manual (QRH). CFR was standing  at ZZZ2 on landing. Urgency was due to overweight landing and fuel system problem.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a fuel transfer problem caused a diversion and precautionary landing.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Citation I/SP (C501)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Working Local Control-2; I observed Local Control-1 prompting a C501 for an expeditious time on the runway. An A320 was tight on final behind the C501. The C501 was a north turn off the runway and would not have high speeds available to make the turn. He touched down and stopped hard; I observed him slow to almost a complete stop just past Taxiway B5; the second reverse high speed. Local Control-1 instructed the C501 to turn around and taxi back on the high speed B5. As the C501 was approaching the runway edge line; the A320 was over the approach lights and I told Local Control-1 this is not going to work. The ASDE alerted a few seconds later and Local Control-1 tried to send the A320 around right as his mains were touching down. The A320 appeared to pass within a few feet of the C501 as he taxied on the reverse high speed. In the dark it was not easily identifiable if the C501 had all parts of the aircraft clear of the runway. A80 needs to realize GA jets do not have high speed turn offs and extra space shall be given to accommodate for that. ATL has created a culture making controllers feel that go-arounds are a penalty and should be avoided at all cost. I feel a timely go-around would have prevented this entire incident but fear of explaining go around caused less experienced controllers not to act of first instincts and try to make something work that never had a chance.




Synopsis: ATL Controller described a probable ground conflict event when traffic was permitted to land; uncertain that the previous landing was in fact totally clear of the runway; the reporter critical of the 'make it work' philosophy that reportedly exists in the Tower.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MFR.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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; Other / Unknown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Assigned the JACKSON ONE SID. Prior to the departure we entered the JACKSON ONE SID and verified it. On climbout the FMS switched to the next point prematurely instead of going to OED [VOR] as depicted on the chart and the aircraft gave cues to turn to the left. I followed the cues and began turning to the left. We were about to switch to green needles and fly directly to OED when ATC told us to look out for traffic ahead so we continued straight ahead until cleared to turn. That's when ATC told us [of a] possible pilot deviation and that this occurrence happens often.  [Caused by] faulty database. According to ATC it's an ongoing problem with the JACKSON ONE departure. Verify the departure on the ground and be aware that the FMS may give you wrong cues but don't follow them. Go to green needles.


Second narrative: Prior to departure; we entered the SID and verified it in the box. After takeoff; the aircraft was following the SID; then a few miles before the VOR; the aircraft started turning left as if it was entering the procedure turn prematurely. We were just about to switch to green needles and continue to the VOR when ATC queried us and said to maintain heading and look for traffic. We saw the traffic and maintained visual separation. We then continued on course per ATC. ATC also said that this happens often. Bad database. According to ATC; it is an ongoing problem with the JACKSON ONE Departure. Verify the departure before takeoff; and switch to green needles if the FMS starts acting up.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported flying the JACKSON ONE SID as published and told by ATC they were off course.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Super King Air 300
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Training was in progress on R29/R30. The CLT 3 mile airspace was unavailable. An arrival and departure push was in progress at the sectors and Aircraft Y aircraft at 140 was vectored to parallel the inbounds on the descent via clearance into CLT. Aircraft X was an overflight at 140 northwest bound. Aircraft X was vectored to a 360 heading to miss Aircraft Y within what should have been a usable 3 mile airspace 30 miles from the GSO radar. The 2 aircraft went into conflict alert with approximately 4.8 miles Aircraft X was then descended to 130. I'm not sure why the equipment decided that the these 2 aircraft were not within the GSO designated 3 mile airspace when they were within 40 miles of the antenna; and that was a deciding factor on the vector used and the 'loss' of separation. At the same time this was going on; Aircraft Y was flashing at CLT Approach; but at in incorrect sector as decided by the automation. We attempted to call CLT with a handoff; and they eventually called Radar; but the aircraft had already penetrated the airspace.1. Fix the automation so that aircraft flash at the appropriate sector within approach control airspace.2. Have the correct radar site in use for the 3 mile airspace when an adjacent 3 mile airspace is unusable.




Synopsis: Atlanta Center Controller reported a loss of separation due to the automation not allowing 3 mile separation between the two aircraft.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp RDU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Taxi in to RDU Gates X-XX and X-XX involves passage through a narrow zone bordered on one side by gate jetways and equipment on one side; and a sloping grass area on the other. The yellow taxi stripe is worn and in poor shape. Compounding the problem is: amber ramp flood lights that make the yellow stripe hard to see and distinguish from other markings nearby; 'erased' stripes; which show up as painted lines in the reflected ramp light at top of ramp; and a black-bordered; white stripe marking the edge of a ground vehicle roadway on the parking ramp. That black bordered white stripe is easily confused for the taxi stripe. If unintentionally used as the taxi guide line; it puts the aircraft right main wheels unacceptably close to the pavement edge. Attention focused outside while attempting to acquire the jetway taxi in line; ensure wingtip clearance from ramp equipment; etc.; under these conditions; can lead to deviations from the taxi line. If taxiing on the roadway stripe; instead; deviations right of track can lead to an excursion from the paved ramp surface. All RDU ramp striping needs to be re-done. Further; painted lines need to be evaluated in night conditions; from the cockpit viewpoint; under the amber ramp light conditions; to determine marking effectiveness. Due to lighting and proximity to marked ramp roadway; a non-standard paint scheme and/or color may be needed for this area.




Synopsis: A pilot reported difficulty taxiing into his gate at RDU because the yellow taxi lines are faded and the bright amber ramp lighting makes the taxi lines difficult to distinguish from other background markings.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CID.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence; Snow; 3
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF CID; Center ZAU
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was on a instrument approach to CID talking with Chicago Center and picking up ice. Chicago asked me to cancel IFR clearance as early as possible because a (Company) plane was landing behind me. I changed to the CTAF frequency and made a 10 miles out announcement. I broke out around 2;000 ft msl/1;200 ft. AGL and change back to Chicago Center and cancelled my IFR clearance with ATC. I switched the comm back to CTAF and continued the approach; however; the button push failed to change to CTAF and stayed on Chicago Center and I missed that. During the approach I was stunned to see a vehicle pull out onto the approach end of the runway and stop at the very end just beyond the runway end lighting. I was still approximately 1-1 1/2 miles out. I had to make a decision to land or go back up into the icing. As the runway was 8;000 ft. long I elected to extend and land in the 2nd half of the runway as opposed to risk picking up excessive ice and endangering my aircraft.




Synopsis: Pilot was flying instrument approach after having ice build up on aircraft. During landing a vehicle entered the  runway. Instead of going around; pilot chose to land long instead of returning to icing conditions.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT; Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As pilot monitoring; I checked in with SoCal after takeoff at 1;500 feet.  I normally prefer to postpone check-in until flaps are up; but this is a busy frequency and we were heavy so we had a bit of time before acceleration to clean up speed.  Departure's instructions to us were mumbled; but both the Captain and I understood him to say to turn left to 185 and 250 knots until PEVEE.  I read this back.  He responded with a similarly mumbled response which I understood to be clarification of the speed restriction until PEVEE; to which I responded 'Roger.'  By this time we had to change configuration to capture the heading; and call for and select flaps up concurrently with the communication.  Shortly thereafter; Departure queried our speed; I responded that we were accelerating to 250 knots (we were heavy; and the airplane was slow to accelerate).  A few moments later; the Controller queried our heading.  I responded; '185.'  He was upset and issued some instructions that were not completely intelligible; but seemed to indicate we were to proceed direct to PEVEE.  I responded with our understanding of our instructions; and he responded angrily with something along the lines of; 'Turn direct to PEVEE; maintain 250 knots; climb and maintain 13;000.' 'Why would you take a clearance you weren't sure of?'  I read back the clearance; but didn't answer his last question.




Synopsis: Pilot not flying reports of a mumbled transmission that he accepts and turns to what he thinks he heard; along with maintaining a speed he thought he heard to maintain.  Controller questions heading and speed and then comments to pilot asking why they would take a clearance they weren't sure of.