elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Electronic Library (other than Nav database)
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Taxiing out to XXL for ZZZ LP (Load Planner) was having a hard time reconciling the passenger count. We had to do a manual head count and sent it to LP. After half an hour they wanted another head count. This did not help. Dispatch could not help us. We were on the taxiway X facing west by XXR for almost 3 hours. We received multiple conflicting final weights and T/O Data messages. The data coming over ACARS was not consistent with a verifiable final weight and take off data message. On top of this the trim kept fluctuating. We tried to save the flight by confirming the data with dispatch and LP but could not accomplish this. We were running low on fuel; time and ideas. [The Flight Operations Manager] on SATCOM concurred and we went back to the gate and cancelled. The airplane that was in the software for LP was a different configuration of the B777ER than what we were in. At the gate we were told that all the data that was coming to us was for a different type of B777ER aircraft configuration.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported difficulty reconciling the passenger count due to flight planning software errors.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A new AML (Aircraft Maintenance Log) book was started before the book that was in use was finished. This left one used log book and two log books in use and no spare book. This is not the first time I've filed a report on this subject. This is actually a common event; seen by many mechanics that I work with and they do not bother to report it because they do not think it is a big deal or are just plain lazy in my opinion. I think it is a very big deal. We are setting ourselves up to fail and maybe have a serious incident. If a mechanic and pilot fails to check the third supposedly unused log book after checking the used log book and the book in use. This is where we can miss a serious discrepancy written up and allow the aircraft to fly. This nobody wants to happen and can be easy corrected as noted below. It is too easy to start a new log book by accident or ignorance by way of our current maintenance procedures for controlling log books on the flight deck in the FDML (Flight Deck Maintenance Log). There should be only two log books in the FDML. The fully used one and the book in use. A new book should kept in the flight deck someplace; like we use to do at legacy [company]. Put it in the yellow book that would be a good place.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician discovers additional Maintenance Log on Flight Deck.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CHD.Airport, AZ
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On my solo cross country flight I was on the way from GYR to ZZZ. When I was on the way from VPGLX to VPNTT at 5500 feet I saw a dust storm in front Sacaton Town which was my next way point after VPNTT. I didn't see the border of the dust storm to the south and I couldn't go to the north because there are several airspace (CHD; IWA; PHX) but I saw that I could climb over the top of the dust storm. I initiated a climb from 5500 feet to 9500 feet; aware of PHX airspace B from 7000 to 9000 feet in front of me. The climb happened pretty fast and I noticed that I was in an updraft. When I was behind the dust storm at 9500 feet a downdraft hit the airplane and pushed me down into B airspace to about 8700 feet; even at full power I could neither hold the altitude nor climb anymore. I decided to initiate a rapid descent to get out of the airspace and made a turn to the right because there the bottom of airspace B is at 8000 feet so I could get out of it faster. I descended back to 5500 feet and continued my flight normally with no events during the rest of the flight. I think that I was in airspace B for a few seconds; but it happened unintentionally and I was aware of the airspace bottom and top.




Synopsis: Student Pilot reported entering Phoenix Class Bravo Airspace due to winds.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Falcon 20FJF/20C/20D/20E/20F
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E D10
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching the Dallas area about 20 miles from the destination; we were cleared from 8000 ft to 3000 ft MSL. Upon reaching 3000 ft; we had traffic at 10 o'clock; 3 o'clock and 12 o'clock low. The copilot keyed the mic 7 times on the Arlington traffic advisory frequency to bring up the airport lights and identified the destination airport. At that point we canceled IFR. We completed the before landing checklist while keeping an eye on the numerous other aircraft while we flew. We made the required VFR calls on traffic advisory frequency for Arlington. We entered the pattern flying a downwind to the landing runway but there was a Cessna aircraft that called that he was turning base for that runway ahead of us so we elected to stay at pattern altitude and make an upwind leg. Continuing around the pattern ; there were numerous aircraft in the area. The copilot keyed the lights again at the same time a Cessna landing at Grand Prairie brought up the lights at that airport and when the lights came to 'bright' as if by our command; we misidentified it as our destination airport and landed. The landing was uneventful. Clearing the runway; I immediately suspected we were at the wrong airport because the control tower was on the wrong side of the field from where I remembered it. We taxied to the FBO and called the company with our report.Areas like Dallas have a multitude of airports and despite normally being able to identify them with the controllable runway lights; it is not a positive enough way to confirm the identity of the airport. I normally confirm the identity with the GPS as a backup but got too busy watching traffic. In the future I would stay with ATC until I had intercepted the ILS if it was available; regardless of the runway of intended landing.




Synopsis: Dassault Falcon 20 Captain reported nighttime lighting confusion resulted in his landing at the neighboring GPM airport instead of the intended destination; GKY.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 20FJF/20C/20D/20E/20F
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Other Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Second overwing top off was performed to ensure adequate fuel load for flight leg between ZZZ and ZZZ1. Planned fuel burn was 6300lbs. 45min. Reserve was 1500lbs. Total fuel load was approx. 8200lbs.Once established in cruise flight at FL340; the Cruise Checklist directed a fuel quantity check which revealed a fuel imbalance showing the right wing tank with a lower quantity.Fuel flow and burns were equal. We initially suspected an inaccurate gauge and began troubleshooting that perceived problem; checking circuit breakers and inverters. The right quantity continued to drop. We began to suspect a leak somewhere in the system and started to plan for a possible diversion along our route of flight.As we were deciding that; our destination airport provided as near and suitable landing surface as any others; low pressure warning lights began to illuminate which prompted us to respond by addressing and following the Abnormal Checklist for each warning. One exception was to not open the cross feed thereby preventing any loss of left tank quantity through a leak. Shortly thereafter; the right engine shutdown. We then completed the appropriate Abnormal Checklist and secured the right engine; advised ATC of our one-engine status and of the need to proceed direct to ZZZ1 immediately with no delay for landing. Descent; approach and landing were completed with no further problems. Company ops was then contacted and apprised of the situation. The investigation is ongoing to determine cause and corrective action.




Synopsis: Falcon 20 flight crew reported fuel leak inflight causing inflight engine shutdown. The flight continued and landed without incident.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Tower, WA
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Airport
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on final to Runway 16R and was just passing over BFI. As I was monitoring the scope due to multiple go arounds [from] inadequate spacing on final causing compression; I noticed Aircraft Y go around from BFI. The targets merged and were showing identical altitude read outs. SEA Tower never received notification from the shout out line as pertained in the LOA (Letter of Agreement) between the three facilities. TRACON to my knowledge transferred communication to the Local Control and Aircraft X landed. Aircraft X had gone around previously due to compression on final. This is a prime example of how to my knowledge there is no solid protection between the two finals in regards to SEA and BFI. TRACON does not stagger arrivals or protect SEA final from BFI go arounds. The current protection that BFI's go around won't break a certain altitude is not enough and allows too much possibility for error that a pilot will break it when they're already responding to a heavy task load situation.BFI traffic intruding on SEA final traffic is only happening more frequently. Aircraft on final to SEA should have solid protection on the final approach corridor. SEA Class Bravo airspace has already been reduced to the smallest footprint possible to be 'VFR friendly.' Safety needs to be the top concern.




Synopsis: SEA Local Controller reported an aircraft executing a missed approach was involved in an NMAC with another aircraft on final approach to SEA.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; MEL; Aircraft
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Prior to takeoff we had a Left GPS fail. We stopped; ran the QRH; contacted Dispatch and Maintenance and MEL 34-53-01A(C) was issued. We completed the logbook; ran our checklists and departed for ZZZ. During cruise I began to setup for the ILS approach that would be required due to low ceilings. When I switched the frequency to active; I immediately got the LOC / G/S caution flags on the primary flight display. We ran the QRH; which told us we could not do an ILS. We also could not fly an RNAV because of the GPS inop MEL. We called Dispatch and decided we would divert to ZZZ1. We continued without further incident. Here is my issue. Had part of the procedure for the GPS inop had us check other navigation systems (ILS) we would have found the ILS to have also failed. From what I understand they are part of the same (box). Could that be added to Maintenance procedures for MEL 34-53-01. Thank you.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a diversion caused by additional NAV systems inoperative and not addressed in an MEL applied to a GPS system.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared for the visual approach to XXL into ZZZ. It was a very turbulent evening. I had briefed First Officer (FO) that my technique was to make my base turn overhead ZZZ1 at between 3;000 and 4;000 feet and then connect with the RNAV Visual to cross intersection ZZZZZ at 2;000 feet. This approach had worked well for me many times. As we were turning overhead ZZZ1; we heard a corporate jet tell TRACON that they had just departed ZZZ1. I believe it was a Cessna Citation. The controller hesitated and said 'standby for radar contact'. At the time; I was turning towards ZZZZZ at around 2;600 feet and descending. I was hand flying and concentrating ahead because of the turbulence; reported windshear and the fact that a previous Airbus had missed for windshear. The FO looked out of his window and said he saw the Citation. I then caught sight of the corporate jet off to our right and slightly below us. The FO said he thought they were turning towards us and closing in quickly. I pushed the nose down abruptly and at the same time received a TCAS Monitor Vertical Speed. I pushed down to approximately 1;900 feet and saw the Citation fly over us. The FO and I estimate we got to within 500 feet vertically. We remember seeing the TCAS show 600 feet separation. The controller quickly came onto the frequency and apologized; saying he thought the Citation was departing and flying to ZZZ VOR (a straight out departure) not towards us. The controller seemed confused. The FO told him that we had the aircraft in sight and he transferred us to Tower; apologizing again. Because of the extremely rough conditions; the passengers and flight attendants were all seated and buckled in and none noticed the extra push down to avoid the Citation Jet. There were no injuries reported in the cabin.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an airborne conflict on approach due to ATC communication misunderstanding with departure traffic.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sundowner 23
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While practicing instrument approaches in visual conditions; established on the 069 radial inbound and descending to the Augusta airport; visual contact was made with a high-wing plane at a range of approximately 300 feet horizontally and 100 feet vertically. That aircraft suddenly passed beneath us from south to north at a range of less than 100 feet vertically and horizontally; visual contact was lost when the high-wing plane passed under our low-wing aircraft requiring immediate evasive actions by the instructor to halt the decent and climb to avoid a mid-air collision with the plane passing beneath us. When we informed the aircraft that they has passed extremely close beneath us on the local CTAF frequency; the response on the radio was: 'well I didn't see you and you weren't on my screen'; alluding to the fact that our aircraft did not appear on his ADS-B in equipped equipment as this training aircraft is not equipped with ADS-B. The level of complacency displayed with that single comment leads to the idea that pilots may have a significant misunderstanding of how ADS-B is required and works. Furthermore; the presence of such a system does not preclude the 'see and avoid' rules.




Synopsis: BE23 instructor reported a NMAC on approach.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Tower, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During this flight; we encountered wake turbulence near the flare portion of landing twice. The first resulted in a uncommanded right roll of approximately 30 degrees followed by a left roll of 15 degrees. A go around was executed. The second was a uncommanded 20 degree left roll; with a prompt recovery and landing. No further wake was encountered. A go-around could also have been executed here; I planned to if the turbulence did not subside after the first correction. Fuel remaining was a factor in this decision; as it would put us below minimum (but above emergency) fuel for return. In both cases; a momentary (1 sec) stick shaker occurred as a result of being at Ref in a high bank angle.

Callback: Reporter stated he hopes mitigating changes might be made to avoid this issue in the future.



Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported executing a go-around after encountering wake turbulence on short final at DEN.