elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were [being vectored for] the ILS to 18R. Approach assigned us 250 knots and advised he would call our speed reduction; [and] then descended us from 7;000 feet to 2;400 feet on a tight base to 18R. I realized we were within about five miles of NETEE; the FAF. I had the power at idle and the spoilers all the way out in order to slow in time. The Controller never gave us a speed reduction but instead cleared us for the approach while five miles from NETEE. As we ALT CAP'd at 2;400 feet MSL we got a 'TERRAIN; TERRAIN' EGPWS warning. I was familiar with the area and knew there were no obstacles in that vicinity. The nearest I can figure is a ~1;000 MSL Tower in the general vicinity that [likely] caused the terrain warning. We never were below 2;400 feet at any time prior to the FAF. Based on our descent rate; this is the most likely scenario as there is an obstacle near NETEE and LEGRE. In any case; the warning went away almost immediately and we continued the flight as normal without the need to deviate or; more specifically; before one could be attempted. I correctly assumed that there was no obstacle; having already briefed the approach and noted the obstacles.I believe this was a nuisance event caused by the tight [;close in] turn given by the ATC and the high descent rate [demanded by] our vector.Be aware of the need to adjust altitude in almost every circumstance when a TERRAIN warning comes up. In this case it was an obvious thing; but I am aware of the need to go around or climb out immediately.




Synopsis: When vectored to a short final for the ILS 18R at DFW; restricted to not below 250 Knots by Approach Control; the flight crew of a CRJ-200 opted to ignore an EGPWS terrain warning as they were leveling at the FAF altitude less than five miles from the fix. The warning went away promptly as they leveled and the approach was successfully completed.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IND.TRACON, IN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C IND
ATC / advisory: TRACON IND
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was on an assigned vector for a visual approach for Runway 05R. I was giving a detailed relief position briefing to a Controller who had not been in the facility for a significant amount of time. I got a conflict alert for Aircraft X; issued the traffic alert; [and] then suggested a 230 heading to miss the VFR traffic. The pilot and I seemed to step on each other's transmissions. I instructed the OSIC [Operational Supervisor in Charge] that Aircraft X indicated they received an RA (Resolution Advisory) for that traffic. I found out later the pilots of Aircraft X were elevating the RA to a NMAC. I have no recommendations to add.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict which ended up being a NMAC.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: FL350 and in ZZZZ airspace with clear weather.  The Captain (Pilot Flying) noticed the number one engine oil quantity display showing zero. The number one oil pressure had dropped to 19. The oil temperature display was showing 158 and rising slowly.  The First Officer (Pilot Monitoring) pulled out the QFE to determine the appropriate checklist to run. The Captain didn't notice the oil temperature display turn Amber; reading 160. The crew elected to run the checklist for high oil temperature. The Captain turned off the auto throttles and brought the number one thrust lever back to idle and began to initiate a single engine enroute descent. The [Relief Pilot] began communications with [Dispatcher] via ACARS as SELCAL was inop. First Officer coordinated with ATC for a diversion. [Advised] ATC. The plane was flown in VFR weather to ZZZZ1 for an uneventful 20 flap single engine landing on Runway XXR.




Synopsis: B767-300 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate airport after the Number 1 engine oil quantity dropped to zero.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BIL.Airport, MT
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C BIL; Class E BIL
ATC / advisory: TRACON BIL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was flying with a current WAC Chart; Garmin 430W and ForeFlight on an iPad with Stratus 2. The iPad overheated; so I turned it off. As I was over the BIL airspace I saw a black cloud to the southwest. I turned on the iPad and brought ForeFlight up. The weather showed thunderstorms and rain across my route. I called Flight Watch on 122.0 and learned that there were pop-up thunderstorms across my route. As I maneuvered while I called Flight Watch I may have dipped down into the top of the BIL airspace. I made the decision to land at BIL; called Tower and landed with radar vectors without incident. I realize that while I have spent recent time learning ForeFlight; I had not been practicing quickly locating airport information on the Garmin 430. I have now outlined and practiced better emergency use of my available tools and how to compensate for the loss of electronic aids.




Synopsis: C172 pilot experiences an iPad overheat enroute and turns it off. When dark clouds appear on the horizon the iPad is turned back on and pop up thunderstorms are being displayed on the NexRad image. Flight Watch is called and the decision is made to divert into BIL. BIL Class C may have been entered inadvertently while talking to Flight Watch.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Tower, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At 400 feet on the RNAV 25L glide path we passed under a drone that was 50-100 feet directly above us hovering.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew had a near miss with a UAS on final approach.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Hail; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Weather was deteriorating at [destination with] lightning; thunderstorms; and hail. [We] held short time [and were given] multiple vectors. Decided not to begin approach as weather was becoming significantly worse. Notified ATC of intention to divert to [alternate]. Dispatch concurred [alternate] weather suitable. [Alternate was] not on flight release as an alternate and my fuel estimate for arrival at alternate was very near my comfort level for landing. Declared emergency for minimum fuel as I was not certain of number of other flights diverting to [alternate] and possible delays there from. Approach and landing were uneventful.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain elected to declare a fuel emergency and divert to an alternate when weather deteriorated at his original destination.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While cruising at FL370 the aircraft crossed the active waypoint; KURSE; and then made a hard right turn back to it. The subsequent waypoint; ONL; remained inactive on the HSI and disappeared from the FMC legs page; with the following waypoint; FOD; appearing at 1L. We used heading select and direct intercept to ONL to get back on course. ATC was notified. The POS REPORT page showed crossing KURSE nine minutes later than we actually did. Actual time XX:01; on POS REP page it was XX:10. Anomaly appears similar to that indicated in the Pegasus Bulletin.

Callback: The reporter stated that this is his second exposure to the PEGASUS uncommanded turn while navigating in LNAV. The first time; several years ago; he assumed that a flight crew error occurred. During this event; he was looking directly at the HSI and became very confused by the occurrence but knew very quickly what had happened. The HSI Map displayed the correct track KURSE the last waypoint; then ONL; FOD. However; a discrepancy existed between the HSI Map; and the PROG and LEGS pages. The LEGS Page deleted ONL and showed FOD as the next fix. The PROG Page kept KURSE as the active waypoint and showed an arrival time of XX:10 even though the aircraft had physically just crossed KURSE at XX:01. The HSI Map displayed the correct information with a magenta line but the aircraft commenced a right turn back to KURSE. The reporter was on either the 160NM or 360NM scale and could not see if the Map actually drew a circle track back to KURSE.



Synopsis: A B757 crossed the active waypoint; KURSE; and instead of the FMC sequencing to the next waypoint; it began a right turn back to KURSE which remained the active waypoint. The LEGS page skipped the next flight plan waypoint and a magenta track line was drawn to FOD. The HSI Map had the correct track fixes but retained KURSE; then ONL and FOD.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Safety Instrumentation & Information
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Absolutely nothing looked abnormal to me in the RFO (Relief First Officer) seat. Then; I thought right at touchdown to a split second after (another crewmember thinks possible just prior to) touchdown; we received a 'go-around' call from the landing enhancement software. Considering we were on the ground; we did not go-around. This was not a go-around at 10 feet where you know the wheels will touch. This was after touchdown with us transitioning from the flight phase to the roll out phase; lowering the nose; ensuring spoiler deployment etc. Although I was the Relief Pilot; I am also a Captain. I am pretty sure I would've made the same decision as the Captain to keep the airplane on the ground. That is key; 'keep the airplane on the ground;' we were not airborne when we got the callout. Had we gotten it 2 seconds earlier; I'm sure we would've gone around. Even in the landing printout; nothing was out of normal. None of us could figure out what the software was sensing to give the callout. Bottom line; this was an extremely late callout by the software that I think put us in a more dangerous position by telling us to go-around when we were actually on the ground.




Synopsis: MD-11 Relief First Officer reported 'go-around' callout from landing software during landing touchdown.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Checklists
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The new triggers/flows procedures are insane! How did you get FAA approval to totally change it all with so little training?! We spent 3 days muddling along trying to figure out who says what; when and what verbiage! What little guidance is available is poorly written and NOT clear! This is an accident waiting to happen! This is occurring because some [individual] is trying to force an Airbus operating syllabus into a Boeing syllabus! These are two different aircraft and cannot be hammered into the same operating envelope just because some old Boeing people can't learn a new airplane! Stop forcing this on us before somebody gets hurt or an accident occurs!




Synopsis: Airbus captain reported the need for more training on newly-implemented procedures.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BUR.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While flying into Burbank at night PF (Pilot Flying) / PIC (Pilot-in-Command) elected to do visual to [Runway] 15. Clearance was granted around JANNY [and] PF took a course that meant we would intercept the final approach course from the left of centerline. PM (Pilot Monitoring) noted that we were left of centerline and that there was terrain in the area. We crossed over the ridge line at the standard 5;500 ft. but thereafter while still left of centerline the PF started a descent. PM had terrain display up on MFD and was watching; there was never a yellow or red terrain ahead of the aircraft at anytime. Yet PM noticed that the radio altimeter was showing a reading while still left of centerline. The radio altimeter reading went below 1;000 ft. and got to around 800 ft. The PM called out the altitudes as soon as they were decreasing below 1;000 ft. and the PF took evasive action by disconnecting the auto pilot and stopping the descent. Almost immediately after the radio altimeter reading went away and we continued a normal descent to landing on [Runway] 15. Taking a visual to [Runway] 15 at night is unnecessarily risky. With margins very tight on the left side of the approach course; situational awareness is reduced at night. The benefits certainly do not outweigh the risks. We never received a GPWS yet we came within below 1;000 ft. of terrain on around an 8 mile final. It is easy to become complacent with your surroundings when you can not see them; so don't bother putting yourself in this situation... The company needs to put into writing that visuals to [Runway] 15 should not be allowed at night. As PM I should have called an immediate go-around the second I saw the radio altimeter go below 1;000 ft.


Second narrative: High terrain in the form of a mountain ridge exists just north of BUR. The BUR airport is located at the east end of the San Fernando Valley. Additional mountains are present just to the east of BUR.Discontinue night visual approaches to BUR Runway 15.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported flying uncomfortably close to terrain on a night visual approach to Runway 15 at BUR; and suggested that the procedure be restricted to daytime operations.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: P08.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZBQ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM P08
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
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: I was conducting instrument flight with a student flying a VOR approach circle to land. We were circling to land and making all appropriate radio calls for the circle. Both my student and I visually cleared the runway before touchdown. We were planning on doing a touch and go. After visually checking the runway and making two final calls; we touched down on the runway to conduct a touch and go. On the rollout when the student was getting ready to add full power; we saw an aircraft coming right towards us on their takeoff roll opposite direction down the runway. I immediately took controls from my student and got us off at the intersecting runway. The other aircraft realized what was happening and stopped as well. I made several attempts to contact the other aircraft with no response. We can only surmise that this aircraft rolled onto the runway while we were on a very short final leg and initiated a takeoff roll without checking to see if the area was clear; making a single radio call; or checking to see what other traffic was doing. The winds were heavily favoring the runway we landed on and there were several other aircraft using the same runway we were. I feel as though that there is nothing else that I could have done to prevent this other pilot from entering a runway and taking off opposite direction right into another aircraft.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported that during landing rollout another aircraft began takeoff roll from the opposite end of the runway without making any radio calls. Reporter exited the runway and stated that the other aircraft stopped on the runway.