elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were advertising Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches Runway 28L&R. We were able to see the arrivals around the San Mateo Bridge during the session. There were aircraft lining up on final to ILS Runway 28 Right and Left instead of the offset Localizer Runway 28R. While I was writing down the call-signs; the finals controller called and said this pair were on Closely Spaced Parallel (CSP) approaches - meaning the two could reduce to 1.5 miles staggered ILS approaches. I really don't think this was legal as we are required to advertise particular language on the ATIS notifying the pilots of the reduced separation. With that; I acknowledged the call as opposed to arguing about it. Based on CSP arrivals separation; they were good all the way down. Not make up the approaches along the way to accommodate a situation that just isn't working.




Synopsis: There are two procedures for reduced spacing of aircraft on parallel final approaches at SFO. The reporter stated the TRACON changed from one procedure to the other without the proper ATIS broadcast.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Engine Driven Pump
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While attempting an engine start; smoke was noticed coming from the cowling. I exited the aircraft and opened the cowling and noticed flames in the bottom of the cowling. Knowing the location of a nearby garden hose; I extinguished the fire with water. My guess is that the excess fuel came from the accelerator pump and the ignition source was a backfire from the engine. Damage was limited to bubbled paint on the cowling.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported a fire in the engine compartment during engine start. Pilot extinguished fire with a nearby garden hose.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 40
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing; [my] engine quit on final and left runway without power and coasted to taxiway and could not reach non movement area of ramp before stopping. Exited aircraft and pushed 20 feet to island airways ramp.  Aircraft was fueled and then taxied under own power to [FBO] ramp for auto pilot work.I had run right tank dry to make sure I would have the 15 gallons available according to fuel flow meter and tank gauge however both were erroneous which allowed the loss of power using the left tank. Upon reflection of the event it dawned on me that the fuel truck on the previous flight must not have topped off tank as I was not present at time of fueling and did not check visually as the total added meshed up with the amount listed on fuel flow gauge. Ironically this was the only time in years that I did not monitor fuel delivery as the fuel flow meter is good to the tenth of a gallon as long as you start with full tanks. I had forgot that I did not monitor the fueling [at departure airport] which led to my miscalculation of how much fuel I had for this trip.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported his engine quit on final from fuel starvation.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B JFK; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was the flying pilot in the left seat for our flight to TEB. As we were being vectored into TEB by NYC Approach we were given a descent from 3;000 FT to 2;500 FT and told of traffic at our 12 o'clock; at 2;000 FT and I believe 10 miles. We made the descent and leveled at 2;500 FT and looked for the traffic. He didn't show up on our TCAS right away. He finally showed up on TCAS as we got a 'traffic traffic' call from the TCAS. I spotted him at our 11:30 and moving towards us. I looked back to the TCAS and noticed there was an up arrow on the TCAS and showed us he was now 300 FT below us. When he was just less than a mile he climbed to 200 FT below us and we received RA instructions for a climb. I disconnected the auto pilot and started the climb. Just then ATC told us traffic was off our left and 'wasn't a factor' and for us to descend to 2;000 FT. The FO responded that yes it was a factor and we were doing a RA climb. ATC seemed a little mad and she said after a huff 'well he isn't a factor' and then asked us to let her know when we could descend to 2;000 FT. We followed the RA climb and leveled off about 3;300 FT before starting our descent to 2;000 FT. This isn't the first time I have received an RA in NY Approach airspace and received attitude about following the RA from Approach Control. I know NYC is a congested airspace but ATC needs to be more professional and safety orientated when this happens. ATC should never instruct or imply that a pilot not follow an RA command.




Synopsis: Captain reports a TCAS RA during arrival into TEB which Approach Control believes is not a factor; but the reporter elects to follow the RA.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MGGT.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MGGT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying into Guatemala City - MGGT; we experienced a navigation coding problem with the ILS 02 Zulu approach in the FMS. This problem has been described to some extent in [company communications].  We had been vectored off of the airway by ATC due to outbound climbing traffic. After traffic passed; we were re-cleared via present position direct to the AUR VOR for the ILS 02 Zulu approach. We reselected AUR in the FMS and went present position direct. We slowed to 160 KIAS with landing gear and flaps extended to 15 prior to crossing AUR; the IAF. Upon observing the outbound track for the teardrop approach; we noticed that the path extended well beyond the 7 mile arc we had previously built in the fix page. There should have been a turn point at AUR 5.0 RF on the outbound leg; but this had dropped out. Cross-checking AUR DME and the arc on the fix page; we verified that the tear drop portion of the approach now had erroneously displayed our proposed flight path well beyond the 7 mile limit on the Navigation Displays. Approaching 6 DME; I disengaged the autopilot and turned back to intercept the ILS runway 02 approach course. We reselected the runway as the active waypoint to keep the fly-to points and missed approach procedure ahead of the jet. We armed the approach mode for the ILS once inbound for back up course and glide path guidance and landed in daylight VMC conditions uneventfully on runway 02.This is the first time I've actually experienced this error on the ND in several trips to Guatemala City.I recommend alerting crews of the possible data base coding problem to help ensure all crews are aware of the potential hazard of an over-extended outbound flight path displaying on the ND of the approach procedure beyond the allowable limits.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported an FMS issue when trying to load the ILS 02 Zulu approach to MGGT.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C IND
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I [was] pilot flying. Significant rain during loading of airplane. Had Maintenance perform water intrusion check; and found avionics 'dry'. At 80-100 knots on takeoff; lost Number 2 generator. While on climbout through 3;000 feet lost Number 1 generator. Complied with phase one and didn't recover either.  Started APU and handed control of airplane to Captain. Ran ECAM and eventually got the Number 1 generator back.  Received vectors and [returned to departure airport].


Second narrative: There was light rain during [loading]. There was some wetness on the floor in the main cabin area; but no pooling. We requested and maintenance performed an E&E inspection just prior to closing the main cabin doors. Maintenance reported the E&E was completely free of water.Push back and taxi were uneventful and normal operations. The First Officer (FO) was the pilot flying. During the takeoff roll; I noticed the Number 2 Generator fault illuminated around 90 knots; so I chose to continue the takeoff. Climbing through 2;500 feet a Number 1 generator fault occurred. I chose to immediately start the APU. The FO asked me to take controls due to the loss of his PFD and MFD. I took over flying and asked him to perform the immediate action items. He cycled both generators and we recovered Number 1 generator. The APU generator also came online about the same time. He continued to work ECAM; and QRH and I coordinated vectors for return to [departure airport]. The FO finished the procedures and we briefed the approach; performed the normal checklists; and flew the ILS to a normal landing.The water intrusion continues to be the problem. I recommend some sort of canvas canopy on the loaders. Maintenance did check and found no water; so I'm not sure what else could be done on that front.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported returning to departure airport after loss of both generators.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was riding in the back of the aircraft on the flight from ZZZ to DEN. On arrival; the descent path took the aircraft straight through the middle of the enormous smoke column from the large wildfire in Colorado. The cabin immediately filled with smoke dense enough to make my eyes water and my throat burn. At the same time; there was nothing but dark orange light in the windows. The light; while not a Safety concern; was certainly eerie. Several passengers were visibly concerned and some pressed their call buttons to ask the Flight Attendant about the situation. We were in the column for several minutes. I was a little surprised when we landed in DEN to look back and realize that there were no other clouds in the sky. The smoke column looked; for all intents and purposes; like a thunderstorm. In my opinion; based on my experience in wildland fire fighting aviation; it would have been reasonable and prudent to ask for a deviation around the smoke column just as any of us would have for a thunderstorm. I've never been certain whether there is actually an aircraft Safety concern regarding flying through dense wood smoke but based on what I saw in the back of the aircraft yesterday there's definitely a passenger comfort concern. It might be worth addressing this in some kind of publication to the pilots.




Synopsis: Jumpseater seated in rear reported aircraft flew through a wildfire smoke column for several minutes.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MYF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN; Class D MYF
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT; Tower MYF
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: MYF RNAV28R approach; circle to land 23. On final approach between fixes NESTY and PENNY aircraft descended to 2;000 feet prior to 2;500; the descent minimum at PENNY. MYF tower controller issued altitude alert and I corrected back to 2;500 feet. Continued approach and airport was visual; above minimums.Circled to 23; tower was trying to clear previous arrived aircraft off runway and I had to execute a missed approach. Tower stated to execute missed approach procedures. I looked at chart and it was to fly straight to 3;000. Raised gear and flaps and climbed to 3;000 feet. At 1;000 feet I engaged autopilot and contacted approach on a new frequency. Autopilot was having the aircraft descend and I disengaged autopilot and it was seemed to be still engaged and I struggled with controls to climb again. Departure control commanded that I climb to 3;000 and I stated that I seemed to be having trim issues as I was fighting to climb. I continued to the headings that were issued by Approach and returned for another approach without further incident. Suggest not using the autopilot until all desired settings are set; and review of missed approach procedures for circling approaches since they are not the same as depicted on the missed approach plate.




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving a low-altitude alert from tower after descending below intermediate approach altitude.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Reverse flow. DAL was north; DFW was south. This is unusual and complex. East satellite position (Dallas North; N) works the DAL departures and hands them off to DR1 [Departure Radar 1] on a heading. DR1 then climbs them; gets them on course and sequences them with the other traffic. In this situation; I was distracted by two imminent issues; there was an overtake with 2 DFW departures on the same route and I had to turn one; and I received a departure directly from DAL rather than from Dallas North; and noticing many LDBs [Limited Data Blocks] in Dallas North's airspace; I was quickly searching their traffic and coordinating with them. I had stopped Aircraft X for some other crossing DAL crossing traffic so he leveled at 130. When I realized I had not climbed him and observed Aircraft Y crossing underneath him; I turned Aircraft X right; but I believe he got together with the Aircraft Y climbing out below him. I probably needed a handoff based on my experience level and lack of proficiency time on departures. Definitely recommend 5 Miles in Trail (MIT) off DFW for same routes because those two that almost got together were an unneeded distraction. When we go to a very unusual configuration like that; the FLM's [Front Line Manager's] need to keep a close watch and control flow if needed. My supervisor did ask if I wanted departures stopped; but at that point it wasn't needed. I overheard another controller complaining that they were unsure of the airspace; I was extremely unsure of the airspace.




Synopsis: D10 Controller reports of a loss of separation between two aircraft. Controller did not turn aircraft soon enough to avoid other traffic and reported he was unsure of what airspace he had due to an airport configuration that he was not too sure of.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out passing 10;500 feet MSL at climb power; Pilot Flying identified FUEL CLOG light illuminated on number 1 engine without ECAM message. We elected to level off at 12;000 feet MSL and as the thrust reduced the FUEL CLOG light extinguished. Once stabilized at altitude and on a vector with ATC; we searched the QRH guidance regarding a fuel clog. We could not find direction other than systems knowledge and we determined there was potential for contaminated fuel. We contacted maintenance personnel but they did not have additional guidance. We elected to return to ZZZ. We coordinated an in-flight divert but did not request assistance or priority. The approach and landing were completed without further incident. From an operations point of view it would be nice to have something in the QRH with some guidance. In my view; any light or ECAM message that can possibly come up or illuminate should have a reference in the QRH. Even if it is minimal; it would give us as aircrew a starting point. We can always execute judgment; but would be nice to know what the company and engineers have to say about a specific malfunction. If they thought it was important enough to install a light in the cockpit; there should be guidance to the pilots on how to interpret that light.


Second narrative: The systems brief in the POH summarized that the fuel filter was being bypassed and there was potential for contaminated fuel.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported a FUEL CLOG warning during climb and subsequent return to base.