elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Sudden partial power loss caused a forced landing in a field. No change when the checklist was run; mixture rich; carb heat on at best glide. Chose a field to land in; no additional damage to the aircraft or any injuries.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reported engine partial power loss resulting in an uneventful forced off-airport landing.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SVVA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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 Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach to SVVA we were in contact with El Libertador Approach Control. As I listened to the radio I heard we were cleared for the approach to Runway 10. Upon reaching the VAL VOR we turned left to join the course reversal holding pattern (used for both the ILS and VOR Runway 10) at which time we saw a TA target on the TCAS inside of our holding pattern; on a parallel course to cross our course in the turn and climbing towards our altitude. ATC was speaking to us in heavily accented; halting English and the potentially conflicting traffic in Spanish. ATC called the traffic to us which we'd acquired visually. The traffic appeared to continue on a conflicting course. We descended and turned inside the traffic to avoid; and as such never received a RA. ATC asked us what we were doing and we replied we were in the course reversal turn and maneuvering to avoid VFR traffic. We then returned to the inbound course and climbed back towards 5;100 FT. Upon crossing the VAL VOR we shot the approach to Runway 10; landing without further complications. Pre-brief all crews to expect a VOR approach to Runway 10; complete with course reversal holding pattern as part of the approach. Ask Approach Control well outside of the IAF what approach to expect in anticipation of changes. Configure and slow early to reduce maneuver space requirements. Repeat instructions back very slowly to ATC and ask for clarifications. Announce that you'll be commencing the full approach complete with course reversal holding pattern turn and ask for ATC acknowledgement. Announce when over fixes and what procedure you're performing (e.g.; entering the hold; VOR inbound and radial; descending to a new altitude and turn inbound to intercept final approach course) in order to maintain situational awareness with the cockpit crew and ATC.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer arriving SVVA reports an airborne conflict with departing traffic after being cleared for the ILS approaching the VAL VOR.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E BNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON BNA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Told to descend via the STAR.  Lowest altitude was 5;000 feet before DRAND waypoint; which has a 6;000 feet or above restriction.  Was given a speed assignment.  Went out of VNAV to open Speed Window and did not reselect VNAV. After passing DRAND intersection noticed we had descended below restriction. Approach Control did not mention the restriction and continued for visual approach and landing.  Pilot flying is new to the aircraft and did not notice the aircraft was out of VNAV PATH.




Synopsis: B737-300 First Officer reported the flight crew descended below a crossing restriction on approach when they lost track of the FMS mode.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON ROA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were flying on a Part 135 flight to ROA. There were four passengers onboard. I was the assigned PIC for the flight and I was flying from the left seat. It was approximately XA:55 and we were in the terminal area of ROA and communicating with Roanoke Approach control. We were at 6000 feet and were assigned vectors and told to expect the visual approach to runway 34. Roanoke Approach control advised us of traffic at our one o'clock position and 500 feet below us. We both attempted to visually locate the traffic. I adjusted my TCAS range to 5 miles and could see the traffic on the TCAS display but was not able to visually locate the traffic. We received an audible message to 'monitor vertical speed;' which I did. Shortly thereafter the TCAS issued a Resolution Advisory to 'Climb'. I immediately disconnected the autopilot and began to climb. Within seconds we were clear of the conflict. The First Officer notified ATC that we had just complied with the RA. Shortly thereafter we observed the airport and were given the visual approach. We landed without incident. There were no injuries or damage to the aircraft. I called our Chief Pilot to advise him of the incident. I don't believe that we could have handled the situation any differently. The TCAS performed its function and we complied with the 'RA'. I believe that the Approach Control facility should have vectored our aircraft further away from the other aircraft instead of relying on our ability to see the traffic.




Synopsis: An air taxi crew at 6;000 ft was issued a traffic advisory at 5;500 ft by ROA TRACON on vectors for ROA. The crew did not see the aircraft but responded to a TCAS RA CLIMB with the traffic 500 ft beneath.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for the ILS 26R into ONT by the Norton Controller. He was established on descent and shipped to Tower. I was on a different sector and noticed a VFR aircraft north of the final at 2500 feet turn south on track to fly over/west of SCRIM. I advised the Norton Controller of traffic and he called the Tower to issue a traffic advisory to Aircraft X. If Aircraft X had remained on the glide path; he would have crossed directly over the traffic with less than 200 feet separation. Instead; Aircraft X responded to an RA and went around at which time he was my control.The Class C airspace design for ONT continues to pose an unnecessary hazard to IFR arriving aircraft. At present; transitioning aircraft can fly over the Final Approach fix of the ILS approach up to; but not including; 2700 feet. With new approach profiles; this affords zero protection for IFR aircraft at a critical phase of flight. The Class C surface area must be extended at least 4 miles east of the final approach fix in order to ensure clearance from arriving aircraft as well as affording the Finals controller two way communications with transitioning VFR aircraft to ensure separation and safety.




Synopsis: SCT TRACON Controller observed an arriving air carrier on an ILS approach respond to an RA due to a conflict with an unidentified VFR aircraft.
Date: 201306
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working North departure; approximately 10 minutes into the session; a B737 tagged up on the BRYCC SID. Our local procedures have the Tower clear them to the first fix on the departure to maintain FL100 with expected climb from TRACON. The B737 was about 10 miles north and had not check in yet; I called to see if they were on the frequency; they were not; so I called the Departure Local Controller to have them try to switch them again. I then noticed the B737 climbing out of FL100. After another call to Tower and attempted tries on emergency frequency to have the aircraft called me; I notified Denver Center of the situation in case the B737 kept climbing above FL230 which is the top of our airspace. The Supervisor then had all positions in the TRACON attempt contact and the B737 was found on west departures frequency; they saw that the B737 was climbing out of FL210 ten miles from Denver Center boundary and they sent them to Denver Center. I was unable to talk to the B737 to find out where the error occurred and why they climbed without ATC clearance. I do not know if our facility made any calls to either Denver Center or the Air Carrier to have the pilot call out facility. We are about 3-4 months into RNAV departures. I have had several aircraft check in with me on departure on a SID climbing to FL230. Again our local procedures have them only climb to FL100. I don't know what the clearances look like when printed out but there is definitely some confusion. I would suggest that either the Tower reiterates maintain FL100 or issue the climb to FL230 with the SID restrictions. Because of our landing and departure configuration at the time this event ended up with no separation issues but there are several configurations we use that this could have resulted in loss of separation.




Synopsis: D01 Controller described a failure on the part of an Air Carrier departure to comply with assigned and anticipated altitude restrictions; the reporter listed the recent change to RNAV procedures as a possible causal factor.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had cleared Aircraft X to land runway 36L and advised them that traffic would be holding in position.  I told Aircraft Y LUAW [Line Up And Wait] on runway 36L and advised them about traffic on final for the same runway.  I then began discussing something with my assist controller and forgot about the aircraft on the runway.  Aircraft X asked if I was going to make this work; I then sent Aircraft X around.  There was no reason to have assist open at the time of the event; traffic was very slow.  DFW has a requirement to have assist open even when not needed.  Many times; like this one; local and their assist get distracted in conversation.  The conversation we were having was concerning the operation; but was not important.Close the assist position at DFW when not needed.




Synopsis: DFW Controller loads the runway while an aircraft is on final to same runway. Controller gets distracted by discussion with Local Assist. Pilot of landing aircraft asks Local if this is going to work and is sent around. Controller blames the assist for the distraction and complains that Local Assist should not have been open.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Crossfeed
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying at 4;000 ft when my engine began to run rough. I turned on the fuel pump; switched fuel tanks and turned on the Alt Air. About thirty seconds later the engine quit completely. I [advised ATC] and began a descent at about 80 knots. ATC advised that there was an airport bearing 210 degrees from my location. I broke out of the clouds at about 400 feet; saw a field and landed gear up in that field.Before takeoff; I had selected the right outboard fuel tank. However; I believe that the fuel selector did not function correctly.




Synopsis: An aircraft's single engine began running roughly so the pilot completed standard procedures and switched fuel tanks. Shortly thereafter; the engine quit so ATC gave the pilot directions to a nearby airport. The pilot broke out of the clouds at 400 feet AGL and landed gear up in a field.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fire Protection System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft was dispatched with 3 MELs; ATSU (Air Traffic Services Unit); Engine 1 Ignition B; [and] Engine 1 Fire Loop A. I was the Captain Non Flying Pilot. FO (First Officer) departure; on initial climbout we received an ECAM Engine 1 Fire indication. FO continued to have control of the aircraft and continued the climb out. The fire message disappeared a few seconds later while we were assessing the aircraft. I requested priority handling with the Tower; then switched off to Departure and requested vectors to return to ZZZ and request emergency equipment as well. We received another ECAM regarding a fire loop failure; another Engine 1 Fire message; [and] then it went away.While we were getting vectors and returning to the field in ZZZ; I checked with the flight attendants to see what they were seeing or experiencing. They did not see any smoke or fire indications. I told them we would be doing a precautionary landing and stopping the aircraft on the runway for further assessment of the aircraft with Fire and Rescue and to expect a normal landing. I advised the passengers as well. We stopped the aircraft on the runway; gave the remaining seated [a] PA after assessing the aircraft and was given an all clear from the fire rescue. We cleared the runway; had the fire and rescue follow us to Gate X in ZZZ and was given an all clear once at the gate.We returned to our departure airport due to the spurious engine fire warning indications. Did not shut down the engine nor perform any ECAM actions on shut down because they were not on the ECAM; - spurious - and verified that we had no fire indications with the aircraft; crew; and Fire and Rescue once on the ground. Total event lasted approximately 20 minutes.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported encountering engine fire protection system anomalies during climbout.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were landing at JFK on runway 31R.  They were departing runway 22R shortened (at taxi way F I believe).  It was a smooth approach to landing with a 12kt cross wind.  As I was in the middle of my flare (probably 3 or 4 feet above the runway) we were all of a sudden thrown to the right and rolled to the right.  I managed to keep the wing from striking the ground and we landed half way between the center line and the edge of the runway.  There was no time/way to execute a missed approach.  We landed first with the right side landing gear then the left and the nose.  I wasn't paying close attention but I remember there being a large aircraft either lined up on 22R or going into position and hold as we were landing.  I believe that aircraft powered up and its Jet Blast is what struck us.  I don't know if it was in position powering up for departure of it powered up to make the turn into position and hold. In my opinion it did not feel like wake turbulence of the preceding aircraft based on my experience in wake turbulence and the lack of any 'turbulence' associated with the event.  There was also a good crosswind and the aircraft ahead of us landed 4 miles ahead and was no larger then an A320.  We ended up OK; but it could have been a very dangerous situation.The Aircraft going into position and hold could have maintained idle thrust either in position or while turning into position




Synopsis: An EMB-135 Captain; in the landing flare for runway 31R at JFK; believes his aircraft was buffeted by the jet blast of an aircraft cleared for an intersection takeoff from runway 22R.  The reporter was able to recover from the upset and land safely in a left crosswind although touching down first on the downwind right main landing gear.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B HOU
ATC / advisory: Ground HOU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While holding short of Runway 22 at Taxiway Charlie; we received clearance to cross the runway. As we rolled past the hold short line. A Company aircraft behind us transmitted our clearance with our call sign on frequency.  As we crossed the runway; we transmitted our clearance to Ground Control. The other Company aircraft transmitted that they had taken wrong call sign's instructions adding to already congested frequency.  We taxied to the gate with no further issues.




Synopsis: Pilot reported confusion when company aircraft taxiing behind them; transmitted clearance to cross runway in error.