elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Post Flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A scheduled VFR test flight was finalizing the last test points as the aircrew began to initiate practice approaches to verify the automatic land functionality and logic inside the previously scheduled restricted airspace. The recovery phase of the flight required the aircrew to operate the aircraft and implement an amended right hand traffic pattern which runs very close to the restricted airspace boundary. This amended right hand traffic pattern not only offered a larger safety margin; but allowed terrain separation as well; which is why a left hand traffic pattern was not utilized.While executing practice approaches; the aircrew noticed that the autopilot was not intercepting and maintaining the approach localizer/azimuth as briefed. The aircrew felt that the amended traffic pattern could be root cause of the lackluster performance and by widening and squaring the pattern; it could assist the autoland to regaining desired tracking performance. While flying the wider pattern; the aircrew was completely aware that they were operating extremely close to the airspace boundary; but felt they were still operating the landing pattern safely inside the restricted airspace. After downloading and parsing aircraft data; it was determined that an airspace breach occurred while the aircraft was on the downwind turning to base. The data shows that aircraft did cross the restricted boundary by 300 FT (estimate only) on three out of [more than] twenty patterns.




Synopsis: While reviewing post flight data it was determined that a military UAV practicing landings breached the edge of the authorized restricted airspace envelope.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Operating Aircraft X while on approach RNAV Y Runway 28L into OAK; a low altitude warning was issued by Tower and a subsequent go-around was performed. I overlooked an intermediate waypoint altitude constraint between the final approach fix and the visual descent point. I was the pilot in command as well as flying. At this point we were VMC and ground contact had been established.I believe the approach plates placement of this particular altitude is easily missed; especially at night and in turbulence. I feel it would be very helpful to future pilots flying this same approach if the constraint was listed at the same 'level' as the previous altitudes.


Second narrative: Cleared for RNAV Runway 28L approach by NORCAL.While on approach; Tower gave altitude alert and asked us to check Altimeter setting; 30.05; which we cross-checked was correct. At ~500 feet MSL (above 420 feet minimums); Tower requested go-around; to fly runway heading climb 2;000 feet. Subsequently given vectors to ILS 30.Flight proceeded normally after that and landed Runway 30. After VODSY (1;900 feet) altitude with VS. Should have spoken up at the time and asked why he had set 500 feet.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported an altitude deviation on approach to OAK airport that resulted in a low-altitude alert from ATC; followed by a go-around.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out we got a LEFT ENGINE BLEED AIR OFF light on the overhead panel. There were no other abnormal indications. We referred to the checklist; recycled the switch; adjusted power; etc. No luck; the light stayed on. We sent a code to Maintenance Control via ACARS. The Captain and I discussed the situation to include aircraft pressurization; which was O.K. (still climbing to cruise altitude of FL380); and whether the current Bleed Air Off light was a normal condition as per the current deferral. There was some confusion at this point because the deferral was not totally clear and the left pack was operating with approximately 10 psi in the left duct. The Captain was discussing the situation with Maintenance Control via ACARS while the aircraft leveled off at FL380. The aircraft started to get warm throughout; and in an effort to cool it off the right pack ended up in the standby/cold position; this was the only thing that was effective. In cruise at FL380 we got a Master Caution/Warning for cabin Altitude with the associated EICAS. We donned our oxygen masks; initiated an emergency descent with ATC; and ran the Cabin Altitude QRH. While accomplishing the items in the QRH; I noticed AUTO INOP illuminated on the Cabin Altitude control panel. I selected the Manual position and closed the outflow valve. We ran the CABIN AUTO INOP QRH and continued our descent to 10;000 FT. Somewhere in the descent we managed to get control of the cabin altitude. While the cabin altitude did exceed 10;000 FT; it did not exceed 14;000 FT and the cabin oxygen masks did not deploy. After conferring with the Captain; the flight attendants; and Dispatch we elected to proceed to destination at 10;000 FT.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reports being dispatched with an unspecified bleed air MEL deferral which may have been a factor in the illumination of a LEFT ENGINE BLEED AIR OFF light during climb to FL380. With the right pack set to standby cold to maintain a reasonable cabin temperature the cabin altitude warning sounds and an emergency descent is initiated. Control of the outflow valve is regained manually and the flight continues to destination at 10;000 FT.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was shipped to me from BOI Approach climbing to FL120; requesting FL350. The LOA with BOI Approach dictates the aircraft shall be climbing to 160 or the requested altitude; whichever is lower. The new BOI airspace test (16;000 feet and 40 miles) has not met a single published passing mark since its inception. This includes both this most recent test and the test two years ago. How many failed tests are we going to run? Are we just waiting for someone to die because BOI Approach wants to increase its traffic count? I'd be interested to see how many reports have been submitted by our airspace department in regards to the BOI test. Although they are not required to file reports; if they truly were in the business of safety; I'm sure you would see the dozens of problems every week we are encountering.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller reports of a failure from BOI Approach to follow the LOA reference handoff altitudes into ZLC airspace.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While performing the ILS 27L into ORD; gusty conditions were present. The autopilot was engaged; as soon the glideslope was intercepted around EBENS fix the autopilot disengaged and a momentary stick shaker activated due to a sudden wind gust. Since we were prior to the final approach fix (TAFFS) on the proper airspeed for the approach and the aircraft was under control and stabilized; the captain and myself decided to continue with the approach and landed the aircraft without further issue.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported a sudden wind gust disengaged the autopilot and caused a momentary stick shaker on approach to ORD.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was with my flight student and we had just performed our clearing turns at 3;000 [feet] MSL and I had decided to execute a simulated engine failure. I pulled carburetor heat and slowly pulled partial power 3/4 out. My student pitched for Vg after some prompting but he got there. I emphasized using a pattern entry instead of flying straight to a chosen field. As we lowered I pulled the throttle to idle and announced 'now you've lost all power.' He turned simulated base then rolled onto final. When we arrived at 500 AGL I said 'ok let's climb out.' He applied full power but rpm didn't increase at all to which he said 'uh oh.' I took control and tried to ease the throttle in gently as to not flood the engine and I believe I heard the engine briefly gain power and then lost power again. The engine was windmilling and never stopped until we made the landing in the green wheat field of approximate 2 feet high. The blade stopped not abruptly but I could tell the grass helped stop it quicker then normal. Also no blade damage was noted. Going back to just before I landed I was shallow turning trying to find the smoothest place to land. The field was hilly and so 300 feet approximately before touch down I saw a hill steeper than I'd like to have seen. Thus I pitched slightly forward to conserve as much energy as possible for the anticipated up hill flare which worked well actually getting us just on top as we made contact with the wheat field. The plane came to a halt in approximately 35 feet. No damage to aircraft and actually very little damage to the wheat field but try telling that to the farmer.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor Pilot reported landing in a field after the engine would not respond following a simulated engine failure maneuver.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PWA.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PWA
ATC / advisory: TRACON OKC; Tower PWA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The pilot was flying the YUCKS.BASTS1 arrival into PWA and was being given altitude and heading vectors by OK City Approach Control. The controller had already instructed to expect the visual right base into Runway 17R. The conditions were completely VMC. The controller gave the clearance 'Cleared Direct Wiley Post.' So being within a few miles from the destination and having the destination airport in sight; and being in VMC; the pilot felt he had been handed off; even though rather informally; and so proceeded to make the heading change toward the runway as instructed and made the frequency change to the destination control tower. The pilot should have asked approach control for verification of the frequency change; but didn't. The control tower promptly informed the pilot that the frequency change should not have been made yet. The pilot offered to return to the approach control frequency but the tower controller said that was not necessary since he was already in communications with the approach controller. All parties were polite and respectful toward one another; but the fact that the issue came up was cause for concern to the pilot. In the future; the pilot will certainly stay on the current controller's frequency until told to change; even if it means busting Class D airspace.It should be noted that some controllers around the country conduct operations much less formally when Visual Meteorological Conditions prevail (such as reporting of crossing a fix); just as some control towers will informally control ground operations; not requiring a pilot to change frequencies to the ground frequency.




Synopsis: IFR pilot reported switching frequencies early while on a visual approach from Approach Control to the Tower.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel Control Unit
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Maintenance actions performed after discovery of cause of #2 engine in flight shutdown. After troubleshooting the inflight shutdown cause to the #2 engine Main Equipment Center discharge to fuel flow transmitter line; which found loose hardware on the Main Equipment Center side connection resulting in a gasket failure; I removed the entire line in order to facilitate the gasket replacement. I had researched the hardware located on the Main Equipment Center side of the line in order to determine if the hardware was a contributing factor to the failure. I had also utilized two Aircraft Maintenance Manual references in order to remove and install the named tube; one for Main Equipment Center replacement (Aircraft Maintenance Manual 73-XX-XX) and one for fuel flow transmitter (Aircraft Maintenance Manual 73-XX-XX). While the fuel flow transmitter Aircraft Maintenance Manual reference does state a removal step from the Main Equipment Center for the gasket; I wanted to ensure I had the proper reference. I believe I had misinterpreted the detail pertaining to the attaching hardware for both ends of the tube in both Aircraft Maintenance Manual references and the IPC reference describing bolt length and washer use as determined by the service bulletins mentioned in both Aircraft Maintenance Manual references; and subsequently installed hardware in the opposing end of the tube; resulting in washers being where they should not be.Suggestions on how to correct the reported concern? Two person verification of components being installed that have service bulletin changes affecting them. Communication between peers and peer-to-leadership when encountering potentially confusing instructions within technical documents in order to determine difficulties that may arise and address solutions before actions are taken on-wing.




Synopsis: Technician reported misinterpreting the manuals and reinstalled the hardware attaching a fuel line incorrectly.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During descent and arrival my Captain and I were discussing some of the potential trouble spots going into SNA. This being my first time into SNA we were discussing the particulars of the short field and also discussing the airspeed restrictions under the Class B airspace. When loading the flight plan and arrival we discussed the RNAV RNP Z 20R as the expected runway. We briefed up the approach and planned to conduct it. The Class B discussion was a distraction [as well as checking for] the lack of any discontinuities in the flight plan; [and] we both missed that we had not been cleared from the approach. At the IAF (KLEVR) the aircraft was in LNAV and VNAV PTH and full automation. As the plane began the right turn and descent on the approach we queried Approach Control to make sure that we were cleared for the approach. They cleared us for the approach immediately but they were expecting us to continue on the heading at the bottom of the STAR and then they were to vector us to final.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported a track deviation occurred on arrival into SNA due to turning before being cleared for the approach.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Normal enroute operation. Planned LOC 27 approach. Visibility reported well above minimums. Executed managed/selected method. At DH (Published + 50); no runway lights; no approach environment; no approach lights. Executed normal missed approach. Climbed to 5000 MSL; and was vectored east parallel to Runway 27; on right downwind. Was handed off to SAN Tower. Made positive contact with SAN Tower. Waited for Tower to turn us right base to intercept LOC 27. Call never came. About 25 miles east of SAN; received GPWS Warning 'Pull up; terrain; Pull up; Terrain'. Executed escape maneuver to 7000 MSL. PM advised SAN of maneuver. Tower issued: 'Immediate right turn heading 180. Maintain 7000'. Crew jointly determined insufficient fuel remained for another LOC 27 approach; followed by a miss and divert to planned alternate. LAX was determined to be best divert airport based on weather; distance and fuel burn; and facilities. Dispatch was advised and concurred. Minimum fuel was declared. Clearance to LAX was obtained; and flight; approach; and landing were normal. Fuel remaining was approximately 40 minutes. Ground turn took 2x than it should due to FA crew desk delaying flight due to their scheduling failure and the need to swap FAs. Return flight to SAN was normal and without incident.


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


Synopsis: Flight crew reported a GPWS warning while on the downwind leg at SAN; expecting a turn to base by ATC. During the subsequent ATC vectors for a second approach; the crew determined the fuel state insufficient for a second approach; and diverted to LAX.