elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Aircraft: Dash 8-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: A330
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A new STAR was implemented today. Before my shift started; I found out later; there had been issues with aircraft on the arrival data blocks not being correct. I was not briefed any of this and took north sector. Until I vectored an aircraft and they asked if I wanted them to descend via the STAR; I had no idea this was happening. The issue was when I put a runway assignment in the data block; the designator to show the aircraft was on the arrival was removed. This is different than another STAR that we use consistently and the issue had been noticed before I came to work; but not passed onto me. I was working routine arrivals; departures; as well as Flight Data because it was not staffed. This in itself is a problem at P80 because it draws controller's attention away from the traffic to work FD functions. An A330 checked in descending to 12;000. Another aircraft about 10 miles in trail of the A330 checked in on the new arrival. I had two departures that were NW bound with the intent of climbing above the A330 as the A330 descended on the arrival. The second of these departures was a Dash 8-400. I had my maps for the arrival and the approach plate pulled up on my screen above my scope. I thought all aircraft on this routing were now on the new STAR; even though data blocks did not indicate this. I watched the A330 and waited for descent; which never happened. The A330 was not on the arrival and was level at 12;000. I turned the Dash 8-400 westbound; expedited climb; and made a traffic call. I descended the A330 and made a traffic call. Neither aircraft had each other in sight; and a loss of separation resulted. First fix should be correct in the data blocks. I know that this was the first day and issues will happen. This known situation could have been avoided with a briefing when I got to work. Simply being told that not all aircraft will be on the new arrival and those that are will not be designated as they are on the other arrivals.




Synopsis: P80 Controller experienced a loss of separation event when arrival routings were less than clear due to the recent change to arrival routings.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
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: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise on a routine flight; we received a HYD 3 LO PRESS caution message. We followed the QRH and was directed to land at our nearest suitable airport. After contacting MX and dispatch; we [advised] ATC and diverted. The approach to landing was uneventful; but we had fire trucks standing by due to the loss of half of our brakes. We also had to be towed off of the runway since we had no nose wheel steering. After a 3.5 hour sit we received a new airplane and continued the flight to the original destination. After talking to a mechanic; an O ring on pump 3A failed resulting on the loss of all the fluid in system 3.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate following the failure of the #3 hydraulic system.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GRI.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D GRI
ATC / advisory: Tower GRI
Second aircraft: Gulfstream Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While landing and shortly before reporting a 2 mile right base as instructed by the tower; a Gulfstream passed to my left also on a right base for the same runway. The Gulfstream's position and speed was going to put both of our aircraft near the end of the runway at approximately the same time with an unsafe separation and expose my smaller aircraft to unsafe wake turbulence. I turned away from this developing risk without instructions from the tower. I reentered a right downwind as instructed by the tower and landed safely.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported executing a go-around on their own to avoid a possible wake turbulence encounter with a Gulfstream on approach to GRI.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When we taxi close to the gate; I transferred the bleeds to the APU from the engine. After doing that; I noticed some smoke and wet socks smell coming out of the vents in the cockpit. We continued taxied to the gate since we were so close to it. After determining that it was a fume event; we called Maintenance and they deferred the APU. No further actions taken. Cause: Transferring bleeds from engines to APU.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported a 'wet socks' odor and faint smoke after transferring bleeds to APU during taxi to arrival gate.
Date: 201710
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Second aircraft: B757-300
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had a 757-300 in front of us on the JFUND 2 arrival into BOS. We were in and out of his wake due to the tailwind on the arrival; so as PF I suggested we ask for a 1 mile right offset. PM agreed; ATC granted. We were 'descend via' on the arrival. I put the offset into the FMC and it began the offset; then said unable after some fix (can't remember for sure...I think it was JFUND). Abeam that fix; it went to CWS (Control Wheel Steering) Right; but stayed in VNAV PTH; so I said I would just use CWS Right to stay Right 1.0 manually (VNAV PTH was still engaged). Prior to SPYSD; we received an approach change from ATC. PM changed it in the FMC (same runway; same transition; ILS 33L now vs Light Visual 33L) and I agreed and PM executed. The path disappeared (not uncommon while it recalculates momentarily) but this happened just prior to SPYSD and we descended below 7;000 prior to SPYSD before the Path came back up. About the time I realized we were low (about 200) ATC gave us a 'descend and maintain 3;000' clearance. I don't think there was any conflict with anyone else; but it bruised my ego.


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


Synopsis: B737NG flight crew reported an altitude deviation on arrival into BOS.
Date: 201811
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
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)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A sick passenger [had] projectile vomit in the aft galley; girt bar; overhead bin; flight attendant closet; passenger seat; aisle and on B Flight Attendant; during boarding. Boarding was complete; and ceased at the same time. [This] was a full flight. There was so much vomit that it looked like a pile; and it was red. B flight attendant and I attempted to clean up as much as possible. We used 6-7 Biohazard kits. My concern is the red vomit; and the amount of vomit; also boarded passengers had nowhere to sit because the seats had vomit. There was no protocol set in place for Hazmat and Biohazard fluids. Also; there was no cleaning crew set in place at ZZZ base. We do not know if passenger had Hepatitis C or any other communicable diseases. There was a lot going on and we did not have any help outside of Customer Service Manager. We should have a protocol set in place for Biohazard and bodily fluids. Also; every base should have on call/emergency HAZMAT cleanup crews.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported no set protocol and inadequate Biohazard kits in dealing with Biohazard fluids cleanup resulting from sick passenger's projectile vomiting episode.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There has been construction on an elevated rail line just outside the airport fence below the final for Runway 27R. Sometimes the construction crew needs to lift a crane which blocks the final. The crew coordinated the crane going up at XA:00 local that morning. However; the crew put it up early without us noticing. A NOTAM covered the crane that day; but it indicated an incorrect time. A jet landed on [Runway] 27R and reported that there was a huge crane in the way of the final and he had to maneuver around it to land. The crane blended into the background; and that's why we didn't see it on final; plus we weren't expecting one to be there. It turned out later (after we called the Supervisor to question about the crane) that the crew put the crane up early; and since the Supervisor forgot to tell everyone about the crane; we didn't switch approaches to the parallel runway to avoid the crane. We should have been more vigilant for a crane since the crane had been up every morning for the last few days. However; the crew had put it up earlier than coordinated; so maybe the communication between the Airport Authority; construction crew and Tower Management could have been better.




Synopsis: OAK Tower Controller described a failed coordination event that resulted with a construction crane being raised near the final for Runway 27R requiring a landing aircraft to maneuver on short final.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna 180 Skywagon
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Trainee; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was CPC-IT training on Local Control; the active runway was 33 only; and Runway 19 was closed. A C162 was straight in on the LOC/DME Runway 33 Approach; VFR practice; and intended on completing the approach and staying in the close traffic pattern. The C162 was issued 'Cleared for the option;' a C180 was on a mid-field right downwind instructed to 'extend downwind' and was issued traffic to follow and advise when traffic was insight. The C180 said 'Cessna insight'; Local Control then instructed the C180 to 'follow the Cessna Runway 33 cleared to land'. Local Control received an accurate read back from the C180. The C162 crossed the runway threshold high but continued with descent for 'the option'. The C162 landed and the C180 turned a very close in base and was short final. Local Control instructed the C162 to 'start your Go traffic short final' the C162 reported 'we're rolling'. The C162 was rolling; Local Control anticipated them being airborne before the C180 crossed the threshold and did not send the C180 around. The C162 then stopped and said (in effect) 'we just lost our engine'. As the C162 was transmitting the C180 crossed the threshold of Runway 33 and landed. By the C162 stating they were 'rolling' during a possible touch and go or stop and go maneuver that would make them a departure aircraft. When the C162 stopped on the runway with a 'failed engine'; transmitted their status effectively making the frequency unavailable; Local Control was unable to send the C180 around. Closest approximate proximity between both aircraft was 4;300 FT. It is recognized that Local Control was incorrect in issuing 'the option' to the C162 ensuring minimum runway occupancy time. Recommendation; add in the AIM what standard same runway arrival/arrival and arrival/departure separation is as defined.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a loss of separation event when traffic on an 'option' approach clearance; lost an engine; resulting in a separation issued with an aircraft landing.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HKS.Airport, MS
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 0
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After departure we were cleared to 11;000 feet. Departure advised us of heavy precipitation ahead and said deviations left or right are authorized. We looked at the radar and Captain decided to go west. We notified departure that we are deviating to the west. Departure came back and asked if we were planning to fly west around the storm and said the weather was better to the east. We discussed this and after looking at the radar again we requested a turn to the East. We were instructed to turn left to a 080 heading. We turned left to 080 and continued the climb. We were handed off to Center and checked on with heading and climbing to 11;000 feet. After reaching 11;000 feet; Center said that we were supposed to stop at 10;000 feet. I said I thought we were cleared to 11;000 feet. They responded to remain at 11;000 feet. Shortly after that; we were cleared to our final altitude of 13;000 feet. We must have missed the altitude change during the change from west to east weather deviation. I believe the cause was being distracted by the weather in the area we missed setting up the altitude change on the autopilot. To prevent this in the future; I must focus on fully understanding ATC clearance and if necessary write it down in busy or distracting situations.




Synopsis: A corporate pilot reported climbing above their assigned altitude after deviating for weather.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed W05. I contacted Potomac on 132.77 and a requested squawk code to enter SFRA. Potomac had me stand by. About then; the engine sputtered and stopped. When they called back; I had informed them that I had lost the engine. After several attempts to restart the engine; I conveyed to them that I was 5 or 6 miles from Clearview and that I could not make it to the airport. They asked me to ident on the transponder; which I did. They gave me a potential landing zone and I replied that 'I have a big corn field in front of me; I am going to the field.' I landed in the cornfield without any damage to the airplane; property; or persons. I exited the airplane [and] called the owner of the aircraft and told him what had happened. Within a minute or two of that; I called Potomac via cellphone at 1-866-429-5882 and told them I was safe and sound. The neighbor of the field where I had landed (name unknown) was cutting grass and saw the landing and came to check on me. The owner of the aircraft showed up to inspect it and the neighbor and him decided to remove it from the cornfield and secure it on his property.  I believe the positive outcome was due to countless hours of conversation (hanger flying) and relentless training on short/soft fields. Also never forgetting to FLY the airplane!




Synopsis: Cessna Pilot reported engine failure and having to land in a cornfield.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: CAVU; CLG UNLMTD; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My Cessna is nearly unique at this point because it has both a Garmin GDL-88 supplying a Garmin GNS-430 (TIS-B) and an Avidyne TAS-600 (TAS) displaying on both a Garmin GTN-750 and an Avidyne MultiHazard Display (MHD).  [Southwest of CMH descending through 2500 feet]; the TIS-B produced a TA for traffic inside of a mile and 200 feet below me at 1:30 o'clock and on an intersecting course.  No traffic was seen out the window at the 1:30 position.  The TAS did not see any traffic at 1:30 o'clock but did locate traffic inside of a mile and going away (same vector as the TIS-B) at the same time as the TA and at the same altitude (200 feet below me) but at the 7:30 o'clock position.  This traffic was confirmed by visual sighting.  It appears that the TIS-B misplotted the location of the traffic and generated a fallacious TA.  TAS data appears to have been correct.  This circumstance repeated itself about 2 minutes later without a TA with TIS-B traffic at 2 o'clock and a mile and a half at 500' below my altitude.  No traffic was seen at the TIS-B report location but new traffic was confirmed at the same altitude and vector on TAS at 8 o'clock and a mile and a half.  It appears that the TIS-B uplink provided incorrect locations for ADS-B traffic that was simultaneously painted by TAS and visually confirmed at the TAS reported altitude; position and vector.  TIS-B was incorrect and; in reduced visibility created a high accident potential situation because a turn away from the TIS-B traffic would have resulted in closure with the actual TAS traffic and the development of a potential mid-air collision scenario.

Callback: Reporter states that the erroneous indications occur about five percent of the time and is always when the ADS-B information is being uplinked (R).  ADS-B (direct) information is always correct.  The reporter also believes that the fault lies outside of his aircraft; possibly with ATC software.



Synopsis: Cessna pilot using both TIS-B and TAS for traffic avoidance reports erroneous target information from the TIS-B.  The TIS indicated traffic at 1:30 coming toward the reporter and TAS indicated traffic at 7:30 going away on the same heading.  The TAS traffic was visually confirmed.