elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were given a descend via clearance on the PCIFC 2 RNAV Arrival. Because we hadn't been assigned a runway transition we both agreed that 9;000 feet would be the bottom limit. The FMS stopped at the STYFF intersection with an at or below 9;000 feet until you put a runway in for the approach. The routing on the STAR shows STYFF being the clearance limit until you have a runway transition. We were getting closer to 9;000 feet and STYFF intersection without a runway transition even though we were anticipating and briefed 30 per the ATIS. The Captain asked if we could request the RNAV Z for 30. We were told to make that request with the next controller. By the time we reached STYFF we weren't able to get radio transmission into approach for further clarification so we leveled off at 9;000 feet. Approach then asked why we stopped our descent and we explained that we were never given a transition. Approach then mistakenly thought we were on the ROOBY 3 which we were not. They gave us a heading and altitude and we continued with no further issues. This brought up the question as to what is correct. Without being assigned a runway the STAR is a bit confusing. According to the wording and the FMS your limit appears to be STYFF at 9;000 feet. However the depiction on the chart shows another waypoint after that of KAYNN at 7;000 feet before the arrival branches off depending which runway you are landing.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported reaching clearance limit on the PCIFC 2 arrival to LGB airport without runway transition or further clearance.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Aircraft component: Oil Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: High Energy Aborted Takeoff.During the aborted takeoff used idle reverse thrusters to stop the aircraft as soon as possible to clear [the] runway.Decision to abort the takeoff was made due to high oil pressure on engine #2 during takeoff.


Second narrative: The Captain pushed the thrust levers into the thrust set position and called 'set thrust'; I verified all engine instruments and called 'thrust set.' Through 80 knots I called '80 knots' and the Captain called our abort. I asked why and he pointed to the number 2 oil pressure. It was in the amber range and reading 117 psi. So we aborted the takeoff and turned off the runway. We contacted [Ground] and told them we need to return to the gate after running the QRH. And followed by shutting down engine number 2 as a precaution.


Synopsis: EMB-140 flight crew reported rejecting the takeoff after observing high oil pressure on the #2 engine.
Date: 202108
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Fatigue; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was a very early show time XA:30. Once we landed in ZZZ; we had over 2.5 hr wait time for next flight. We had experienced a maintenance issue on the first aircraft after we had already boarded passengers. We had to deplane. Do plane swap; board and taxi out for departure. Just before takeoff another issue with the second aircraft. Return to gate; wait for maintenance decision and deplane. Waiting for another aircraft; that's a third one. Waited in open hot air at the gate area for next crew. Felt nauseous and lightheaded. Impossible to continue. We had been dealing with extreme heat; upset passengers and stress due to maintenance issues. I have long haul COVID symptoms. Get tired faster than before. Coming back to full health is taking time. All together had put me in the mental and physical condition of being unable to continue my work duties at 100%.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported fatigue and being unable to perform duties due to multiple return to gate incidents and plane swaps.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon completion of a night cross country with my student; we fueled our aircraft at the self-serve fuel pumps. We then began our taxi back to the hangar. During the taxi we had our rotating beacon; position; and anti-collision lights as well as landing and taxi lights on; and observed no radio calls on CTAF frequency nor did we see any other aircraft operating on the taxiway or other movement areas. As we were approaching the hangar while on the taxiway centerline; we were forced to take evasive action. We swerved the aircraft to the far right side of the taxiway to narrowly avoid a Cessna 172 which was being moved by hand and was on a portion of the taxiway. The aircraft had no rotating beacon; navigation/position; strobes or landing lights on at the time and only became visible to me and my student at the last possible second.Upon completion of securing our aircraft; I was confronted by the persons whom were moving the Cessna. They told me that my student and I came within about a foot of striking their aircraft and telling me that it was my fault. I commented back that they are supposed to give way to an aircraft being operated under its own power; and they should have at a minimum the position lights on; if they are going to be moving an aircraft on or close to the movement area/taxiway at night; as we did not see them until it was almost too late. I also told them that we were taxiing on the taxiway centerline provided; which is supposed to give us wingtip clearance; which is especially critical at night; as forward; side visibility is drastically reduced at night.  They left the confrontation without myself or my student feeling as though the matter was understood from both sides.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor reported a near collision occurred during taxi at a non-towered airport.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW; Class D FTW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Approach; Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was descending VFR towards FTW to my assigned altitude of 3;000 ft. Regional approach advised me of Aircraft Y that just departed FTW and leveling at 3;000 ft. As I was passing through 3;500 ft. the Controller asked if I had traffic in sight at which time I did not visually; only on my TCAS. He told me to stop my descent at 3;500 ft. but I was only able to catch my level off at 3;400 ft. due to the having already passed through 3;500 ft. I then picked up Aircraft Y turning right; on a convergent path with my aircraft. I told ATC that they were in sight and it looked like a convergence problem and I told him I was descending. Aircraft Y was turning right in my course and after I made a rapid descent to 2;500 ft. MSL I saw the traffic pass approximately 400-500 ft. above me in a westerly direction as I kept the same heading towards the FTW airfield. Not once did I hear Aircraft Y say he had me in sight or respond to my convergence comment to ATC. I responded to a visual traffic avoidance and an RA in my instruments. There was light traffic activity in the area at the time so I do not believe that task saturation played a part for any party involved. If Aircraft Y had not seen me visually they should have relied on their TCAS for situational awareness as they were turning into the downwind environment from their departure. I do believe there should have been some acknowledgment on Aircraft Y's behalf after I made the convergence call.




Synopsis: Pilot of a single-engine aircraft reported taking evasive action following a TCAS warning in order to avoid traffic visually acquired following an ATC alert.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out through approximately 15;000 feet;the aircraft started to bounce/oscillate up and down.  This was not normal and was unsettling. The elevator had been inspected due to a prior occurrence of the same thing. The oscillations could not be felt in the control column.  We [advised ATC] and returned to ZZZ uneventfully.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported uncommanded elevator movement in flight.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: KZAK.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A KZAK
ATC / advisory: Center KZAK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: About 3+26 into flight at FL330; after passing N46E170; we encountered moderate to severe turbulence with associated 'pop-up' radar returns beneath the aircraft. We couldn't see as we were at the cloud tops. As Pilot Monitoring; I sent SF Radio [ARINC] a message requesting left deviation for weather; we had radar indications that prevented a right deviation. SF Radio's response wasn't timely enough and we decided to deviate left off of our Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure. We reviewed the Long Range Navigation (LRN) for weather deviations and were aware of parameters and altitude requirements of a deviation off course for weather. Our left deviation kept the aircraft at a safe distance away magenta indications on the radar. SF Radio replied with 'unable deviation left due to traffic.' By this time we had already deviated left. Upon receiving this message the flying pilot turned right to return on course; while avoiding weather. SF Radio sent another message indicating they showed us off course. We replied that we were back on course.Intent is to communicate why we deviated for weather and that the crew was aware of off track deviation procedures.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported a deviation for weather in oceanic airspace; after deviating a message was received from ATC that denied the deviation.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A C750 landing PHL; PHL arrivals with RNAV are required to now have the JIIMS1 arrival. URET showed HERT routing that the aircraft should have the VCN8; the non RNAV arrival. Manual coordination was required as next sector wanted him on the RNAV (JIIMS1) arrival. The JIIMS1 arrival is not correct in URET and continues to show incorrect routing to PHL; TTN; PNE etc. despite aircraft types and routes required. Automation won't fix this. This results in lots of extra HERT routing which is sometimes incorrect in URET and increases controller workload. It is only a matter of time before errors occur due to all the extraneous information presented. URET needs to be changed to recognize the correct routing for the correct aircraft; the controller should not have to work around automation issues.




Synopsis: ZNY Controller voiced concern regarding the PHL arrival routing URET limitations.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Turned 12 mile final to follow hawker on short final. Aircraft cleared for the visual approach behind us number 2 and reported visual separation coming from a left base approximately 4 mile final. Multi-Function Display in traffic mode and target appeared 100 feet below and slightly in front of the airplane in final descent. Executed missed approach and climbed to 3;000 feet. Reported missed to tower and was turned to the left to rejoin final. Rest of flight uneventful. Upon landing passenger said that he saw the aircraft right below us after we decided to execute missed approach.Tower reiterated in phone call after the flight that there was adequate separation based on their radar and the pilots reporting of maintaining visual separation.




Synopsis: A Corporate jet on final executed a go-around due to traffic that was allegedly number two to land.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While parking we noticed FOD in the gate Safety Zone. We had an airplane swap; and when we went to that gate we noticed lots of FOD in and around the Safety Zone. While observing the activities on the flight line; we observed that Ramp Agents did not conduct a FOD walkdown before the departing aircraft was pushed off the gate; nor did the Ramp Agents conduct a FOD walkdown before our new aircraft pulled in. I noticed FOD scattered throughout the Safety Zone; so I entered the Safety Zone after the aircraft pulled out and before the next aircraft pulled in and picked up as much FOD as I could in about 60 seconds. I picked up the following FOD as the Ramp Agents stood around watching me: 1 zipper pull with nylon strap; 3 zipper pulls; 2 baggage emblems; 1 metal paper clip; 1 baggage key; 1 metal washer; 3 black pieces of plastic; 3 red stir sticks; and 3 paper baggage tags. Among the LAS Ramp Agents; there seemed to be no interest or any sense of urgency to pick up any of the FOD in the Safety Zone or the large amount of trash around the Safety Zone. I observed at least one individual sitting with his feet propped up on the baggage tug dashboard while listening to his MP3 or cell phone while I was out picking up FOD and trash. The Station Manager needs to take responsibility for ensuring a FOD free environment on the flight line. Please help us to prevent ingesting FOD in our engines by giving the FOD Program some additional emphasis.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain laments the large amount of FOD found under and around his aircraft during preflight.
Date: 202102
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Position was CORKR intersection to directly over SFO [VOR] at approximately 8;000 MSL. Had navigation flag on GNSS from GPS jamming  Was tracking fine up to SFO; Over SFO GNSS made a turn directly to ZZZ or so was thought; however; it was off course; Controller asked what our previous clearance that had been given; which was HOLLR; GRIJO; CORKR; SFO; ZZZ. Original clearance was GPI DIRECT to ZZZ. On the NW side of Nevada; there was GPS jamming was in progress. We reported it; and checked with controllers to see if our course was accurate. They informed us it was; and that if necessary they would give us a heading. Upon changeover to Oakland Center; we advised the Controller that GPS jamming had been in progress; and that we still had a navigation flag. He then issued a clearance to follow the fixes listed above; and we then asked how much longer the GPS jamming would continue. He said a few more miles. we advised him we still had a navigation flag on our GNSS; but apparently he was distracted; and told us to continue without issuing a heading. We were then turned over to another controller who apparently had not been informed of the ongoing issue. Hence once over SFO VOR; was when the issue listed above was encountered. We were not told if there was a near miss; he just gave us a heading to 180 and vectored us to the airport after that. Once on the ground; we were advised to call approach control for a possible deviation. We attempted to call but could not get through to anyone. We advised the Tower we were not able to reach anyone; so he tried to call and failed; but then he got through with another number. They said to disregard; and we then proceeded to ZZZ1 where the flight terminated.




Synopsis: Air taxi Captain reported a track heading deviation after experiencing GPS jamming near SFO VOR in ZOA ARTCC airspace.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 33
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed and noticed the passengers' door was not completely shut so I circled back to land. I selected the gear down. Only the main gear came down the nose gear did not. After going through all the emergency procedures and overflying the airport; radioing the Maintenance personnel on the ground and them confirming I had the 2 main gears but not the nose; I decided to burn the majority of my fuel off and go to ZZZ and declare an emergency. I landed at ZZZ with the 2 main and no nose gear.




Synopsis: BE33 pilot reports failure of the nose landing gear to extend when the gear is selected down. All attempts at emergency extension are unsuccessful and a nose gear up landing ensues.