elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ASE.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ASE
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying from ZZZ to ASE and I was the pilot flying. As we approached Aspen; which at that time was reporting VFR; we were given vectors to intercept LOC DME E into ASE. I looked over and noticed the LOC approach was not properly set up. I warned the monitoring pilot of this but at that point we made visual contact with the airport. We accepted clearance to maintain 13;000 ft until established and clearance to execute LOC DME E approach. Having visual contact with the airport we started our descent. A layer of clouds moved in below us as we made the final turn inbound. At the entire time we had full visual contact with all the terrain around. We lost sight of the airport due to the cloud layer; at the same time ATC issued an altitude alert. I emphasize that we were in full visual contact with all the terrain and that visibility at our flight level was unrestricted. The pilot monitoring advised that we had terrain but lost a visual with the airport and said that we would be going missed and starting a climb. We got another altitude alert from ATC. We advised we are in a climb and asked for vectors to give time to decide what to do. We proceeded to ZZZ1 airport afterwards. We were NOT in IMC conditions at any phase of the flight and we maintained visual clearance from all the terrain. The mistake was communication breakdown with ATC and in part CRM in regards to the intentions to execute a visual approach. At no time aircraft was in IMC conditions and we were maintaining clearance with terrain at all times. The aircraft was never put in any unsafe condition. I learned from this how CRM and communication has to be mastered the entire time.




Synopsis: Learjet First Officer reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC after descending early on a cleared instrument approach.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ANC.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ANC
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: [We were] being vectored for the ILS runway 07R approach at Anchorage; AK. Visual Meteorological Conditions were present at the time.Flight was controlled using the Center Autopilot. Airplane mechanical deferred items included the Left Autopilot as inoperative.At about ten (10) miles west of the airport and intercepting the localizer to runway 07R; the plane captured the course and continued. However; the localizer course failed to lock. The plane drifted off course and required correcting using the Heading Select commands. Small corrections were made and the localizer approach was re-armed.  A few moments later the localizer was captured. The Flight Management Annunciators displayed LOC; thus affirming course capture.The approach continued to the final segment; located about five miles from the runway. However; there was a second correction that was required. The autopilot was disconnected at about 1.6 miles and 500 feet AGL; the approach continued to an uneventful landing.This is the second occurrence in the past month of an irregularity with the ILS localizer runway 07R at Anchorage. The localizer fails to lock after course capture.An aside; a conversation was made with another air carrier operator. They affirmed a question about the localizer locking course during approach to runway 07R.[Suggest] careful monitoring of Flight Management Annunciators during an ILS runway 07R approach at Anchorage is standard operating procedure. An approach into instrument meteorological conditions and localizer lock failure would require prompt intervention; including considering a manually flown approach.




Synopsis: B747 First Officer reported a course deviation resulted when the ANC 07R localizer signal displayed anomalies. Reporter stated he has seen this issue in the past.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: While descending on the OAKES2 STAR; we were cleared for the ILS to Runway 30. As the PF (pilot flying); I selected 2000' on the FCP (Flight Control Panel) and continued the descent in PROFILE (the autopilot had already flown the entire STAR without incident). After passing the PRFCT fix at 5000'; the aircraft continued the descent to the next fix; PARBB. But prior to reaching PARBB; the aircraft failed to honor the 4;500' altitude constraint and continued to descend the approach was loaded correctly and verified by the PF and PM (pilot monitoring) prior to the start of the arrival. As the PF; I recognized the error and disconnected the autopilot to stop the descent; but we had lost approximately 800' in the process. We immediately got a call from OAK approach control saying they received a low altitude alert. I had already started a climb back to 4;500 and told ATC we were correcting back to the published altitude. The rest of the approach was flown uneventfully in Level Change. Autopilot PROFILE failed to honor the altitude constraint on the approach. All systems were loaded correctly and working properly up until this point in flight. The cause of the failure is unknown. This is not the first time I have seen PROFILE miss an altitude constraint. Other pilots have commented that it has happened to them several times as well. I do not intend on using PROFILE any more during the Approach phase of flight. I simply cannot trust it anymore.




Synopsis: A300 flight crew encountered anomaly with avionics equipment during approach.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: B737-800
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working Departure sector. Gorgeous VMC. The SOP allows Tower to launch successive departures utilizing pilot provided visual separation. The Tower must modify the secondary scratchpad in the STARS data-tag to 'VV' to advise the TRACON that pilot provided visual separation is being used. However; in this case the first aircraft is an A321 and that type of aircraft is notorious for climbing out much slower than most other aircraft.According to the FALCON replay; the trailing B737-800 is 1.55 miles behind the A321 with a 60 knot overtake. I restricted the B737-800 to 230 knots and requested the A321 increase to 250 knots as soon as possible. Despite those efforts the situation continued to compress. While I was aware pilot provided visual separation was being utilized; in my judgment the situation had become unsafe and I decided to break our noise abatement procedures and initiate an early eastbound turn for the B737-800. After initiating the turn I made the supervisor aware of the situation. Both aircraft subsequently continued their departures without further incident.This is a common problem that we experience with the A321 departures. I do not know why this specific aircraft type climbs out so differently; but it is common knowledge at the TRACON. I would propose that this situation could be corrected by changing the Letter of Agreement to exclude A321 departures from the provision allowing the use of pilot provided visual separation between successive departures. If Tower had utilized the standard 3 to 5 mile in-trail spacing that would have been required during IMC; this event would have been completely avoided.




Synopsis: A procedure allowing pilot provided visual separation between successive departures caused a conflict between an A321 aircraft climbing at a much slower airspeed than a B737-800 departing behind the A321.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: During departure from DEN Runway 08; night VMC; I noticed that the runway centerline lights are only visual for 2000 to 3000 feet ahead of the aircraft. The centerline lights to the end of the runway were not visible including the alternating red and white lights of the last 3000 feet.  This would prove difficult during an engine-out situation in which directional control is enhanced by using an aiming point of the centerline lights at the farthest end of the runway. I have spoken with other pilots who have noticed the same condition on other runways at DEN.




Synopsis: An A320 Captain noted that departing DEN Runway 08 at night; only 2;000 to 3;000 feet of centerline lights preceding the aircraft are visible. The runway end alternating red and white lights are not visible until approaching them.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MMMY.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Hail; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing runway 29 to the west from MMMY; an [air carrier] plane had just landed runway 11 coming from the west. No convective weather was listed in the Dispatch Release with the exception of CB and ice to the distant east/southeast; which we also later confirmed with MMMY Tower. Neither the [landing] plane nor ATC made any mention of weather. We had radar turned on prior to takeoff and concluded that the echoes were associated with the terrain to the west. At about 5;000 feet we entered IMC followed by continuous hail. Just before exiting the IMC conditions we received the following EICAS messages: AP FAIL; AT FAIL; ELEVATOR FAULT; RUDDER FAULT; YD FAULT. I took control of the radios and flight controls; and directed the First officer (FO) to begin running QRH procedures beginning with AP FAIL. I leveled the airplane at 12;000 feet and 250kts initially; and then climbed to FL200 as we were approaching higher terrain. Upon completion of all the QRH procedures and Mechanical Irregularity Chart In Flight; we were left with the EICAS displaying AT FAIL; STALL PROT FAIL; AOA LIMIT FAIL; WINDSHEAR FAIL. We concluded the flight could be completed safely. The FO took control of radio #1 and flight controls. I tried several frequencies attempting to contact [company] Radio and commercial radio; but was unable to establish contact. Via ACARS text message I notified Dispatch/Maintenance of what happened. They agreed the flight could be completed safely; but to contact them on the ground for logbook entries. I resumed control of the flight controls; and we resumed normal speed and climbed to FL300. The flight completed with no further irregularities. Upon landing the EICAS messages disappeared but the following messages displayed: FLT CTRL NO DISPATCH; ADS PROBE 3 FAIL; ADS PROBE 1 FAIL. We completed those three QRH procedures; yet the EICAS messages remained.




Synopsis: An EMB-175 Captain reported a number of system failures annunciated on EICAS following a hail encounter departing MMMY.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 50
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: TRACON RNO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was executing the RNAV (GPS) Y Runway 34R to RNO on the autopilot. I was transitioning from VIKES. Prior to intercepting final; I was vectored through final for spacing on a heading of 260+/- degrees. ATC gave a right turn vector of 020+/- degrees to intercept the final approach course of 344 degrees. I can not recall the last assigned altitude. After allowing the autopilot to complete the first 80 degrees+/- of the turn; I disconnected it and steepened the turn. I was concerned that we would not be on course until inside of SUTEE making our approach steep and unstable. We intercepted the course just outside of SUTEE in and out of the bottoms of the clouds. As the FMS sequenced from SUTEE to Runway 34 I continued descent. We were now VMC. ATC said to check altitude as they were getting an altitude warning. I do not recall our altitude but advised them we were VMC and clear of terrain. They asked if we wanted a VFR approach and I accepted the visual approach to Runway 34R. Our GPWS gave a terrain warning from the ridge line crossing 1.5 miles after SUTEE. I can only surmise that it was because of my rate of descent with terrain rising in front of me. I maintained visual separation from the terrain and continued to landing. I should have not accepted the right turn to final inside of ROYDO (IF) since this hurried the approach. Disconnecting the autopilot narrowed my focus in mountainous terrain. Asking for a resequence would have immediately slowed events down and ensured a stable IFR approach as originally planned.




Synopsis: A Falcon 50 Captain reported an unstabilized approach and descent below depicted altitudes during the RNAV Y Runway 34R at RNO. Vectors through the final approach course for spacing by ATC had resulted in intercepting just outside SUTEE. The autopilot was disengaged to hasten the turn.
Date: 201911
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were cleared onto the Runway 20R as the [preceding] flight was running up engines; just prior to [their] takeoff. We were cleared for takeoff [and] while in the left turn to line up/do our SNA run-up; with fully loaded aircraft. Takeoff was normal; to include cutback of 83.1; with flaps 10 set. Shortly after stabilized cutback; I encountered significant jet wash/turbulence from the [preceding] Airbus [A321]; requiring significant aileron inputs and a little rudder to keep the wings level; lasting 5-10 seconds. During that period; I got a brief stick shaker; while attempting to follow the flight path indicator reference in the HUD. I corrected the attitude; and then selected Emergency Power to quickly climb above the Airbus' flight path ahead. Once leveled off; I made a Public Address to the passengers; apologizing for any discomfort in the climb out; having pre-briefed them on the ground with SNA climb out procedure. No negative comments were observed by the Flight Attendants or me after deplaning.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence departing SNA in trail of an A321.
Date: 202111
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; 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: Throughout US airspace and spilling out into Canadian airspace; 121.5 MHZ has become unusable for its intended purpose. I and my colleagues in the airline industry can no longer monitor 121.5 because it has become a dumping ground for US right wing political and juvenile commentary. It is an intolerable; constant distraction being forced to listen to that nonsense and crews are choosing to turn Guard frequency down or off. US aircrew unprofessionalism is on display for other crews from the entire world to witness which is bad enough; but denying the use of Guard must be dealt with.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the Guard frequency becoming unusable due to near-constant political commentary from other pilots.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: On approach into Salt Lake City at 5;300 ft I noticed a drone pass off the right side of the aircraft at our altitude within 100 ft of the right wing tip. Salt Lake Approach warned us about a green laser event and shortly thereafter I see the drone; reported the sighting and landed safely.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported that a UAV was spotted within 100' of right wing-tip on approach to SLC.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AVL.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C AVL
ATC / advisory: TRACON AVL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for the visual approach Runway 17 into Asheville. We were at 6000 feet coming in from the southeast and we had the GPS runway 17 loaded in the FMS. The Captain set 4000 ft in the Altitude Selector and we looked at the GPS plate confirmed 4000 ft at FAF and saw the highest obstacle of 4368 ft to our right in the distance.  We were VMC at night and we saw the higher terrain to the right of us and we saw [lower] terrain in front of us. We both thought we could get through with the [lower] terrain ahead. As we crossed over the [lower] terrain we got the GPWS 'terrain' and pull up. The Captain quickly clicked off the autopilot and arrested the descent at 4700 ft MSL. No limitations were exceeded as we were at Flap 8.  We continued on the approach and landed without further incident. We saw the higher terrain to our left which I pointed out and we both agreed we could set the FAF altitude and descend. The Captain even slowed his descent to 0.9 from 1.5 as we crossed the terrain. We may have been too focused on the highest obstacle and higher terrain. We clicked off the autopilot and I called out the altitude we were at cleared his FD. We continued since we arrested the descent and no further incident took place. Next time I will suggest to wait until we cross over the terrain before descending from 6000 feet.




Synopsis: CRJ First Officer reported receiving a GPWS Terrain warning on a night visual approach to AVL.