elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MKJS.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MKJS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: LENAR 4 Arrival for ILS DME RWY 07. Cleared to OMAXI descending to 3;000 FT. Cleared for the approach. Intercepted OMAXI on LNAV and selected 1;800 FT for ANAPA crossing. Selected LOC as we crossed OMAXI (waited until between SIA 278 and 218 radials per note on 10-7B-1). Received a warning CAUTION TERRAIN. Disconnected autopilot and verified aircraft position. We were slightly north (left) of localizer and above 1;800 feet for ANAPA crossing. Continued to hand fly a visual approach; intercepted glide slope at ANAPA and landed RWY 07. We are unsure why we received a warning when we were at proper altitudes and north of localizer which should have kept clear of all terrain.


Second narrative: During arrival in MKJS aircraft was on VNAV path and direct to OMAXI. Prior to OMAXI 1;800 feet was selected on MCP to use VNAV guidance until the FAF. During the smart turn to final approach course after OMAXI the Captain selected VOR/LOC to use the LOC lateral guidance. A few seconds later the caution terrain alert sounded for a few seconds. I looked at my EFIS annunciator and realized the aircraft was not in path anymore and was on SPD mode. The altitude was between 3;000 feet (OMAXI altitude) and 1;800 feet (for ANAPA); maybe slightly below the plan path but [I] do not remember exactly at what altitude. Aircraft was on correct course on LOC track. The Captain immediately climbed a little bit and steered the aircraft a few degrees toward the left of course towards the water as a precaution and the alert went away [immediately]. I believe that when VOR/LOC mode was selected the aircraft reverted from path mode to SPD mode and got a little bit lower than the planned descent path prior to the FAF and that triggered the caution terrain a for a few seconds. I realize the importance of the pilot monitoring being on the constant look out for sudden EFIS mode changes and making sure the aircraft is complying with the correct altitudes and courses since the Pilot Monitoring has a broader picture of what is going on with the aircraft as a whole.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported receiving a GPWS terrain alert on approach to MKJS.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JNX.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20 Undifferentiated
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G JNX
ATC / advisory: CTAF JNX
Second aircraft: Bombardier Learjet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We took off from Runway 21 at JNX. At approximately 600 ft AGL on the upwind a Learjet that had taken off from the same runway after us passed beneath our left wing before we had turned left crosswind. We advised the jet that they had come close to us and they claimed that they had us in sight the entire time; however the jet had never informed the CTAF of takeoff or any other callouts and when we spotted the jet it was uncomfortably close.


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


Synopsis: DA20 flight instructor and student reported a NMAC with a Learjet departing JNX airport.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PAO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PAO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While working as CIC; I observed the following incident develop for Local Control; a position in which OJTI (On-the-Job Training Instructor) was being provided at the time of this event. Aircraft X made a short approach to Runway 31 and after appearing to roll past Taxiway Bravo; made a greater than 90 degree turn back to start exiting Bravo. Due to an airport reconstruction project; aircraft are proceeding onto Runway 31 at Bravo for departures and there was an aircraft holding short of Bravo waiting to depart. The Local Controller instructed the aircraft to turn right onto Taxiway Zulu; which is the opposite direction of the ramp; but the only way the arrival could fully exit the runway. Aircraft X did not understand the instruction and held on Bravo; which was not fully clear of the runway. I pointed that out to the Local Controller.The OJTI then intervened to send an aircraft; Aircraft Y; who was just inside a 1/4 mile final to go-around. Aircraft Y did not respond and the OJTI made repeated calls for them to go-around. On the third call; Aircraft Y acknowledged and started to go-around; by which time they had already crossed the runway threshold; though they did not touch down. An overflight did not occur due to Aircraft X holding just shot of Taxiway Zulu; which is still offset from the runway. I then had a Controller relieve the Local Controller and OJTI while also calling the Supervisor working downstairs to relieve me and cover the report as I was minutes away from the end of my shift. I consulted with the Supervisor if we should issue a brasher warning to Aircraft X; who I felt did not follow ATC instructions in exiting the runway. But; the Supervisor declined. The Supervisor then filled out the report as I was at the end of [the] shift.Our ATIS already mentions a fair bit of extra instructions for the unusual closure at Taxiway A. I question if there is more information that could be made available to pilots via other means that could go into more detail about the closer; expected routes; and the required read backs during the unusual set up.




Synopsis: PAO Tower Controller reported a runway incursion resulting in a go-around possibly due to airport construction.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: CAS flap/stab miscompare; uncommanded stab; flap asymmetry.  Asked ATC for hold to work on an issue.  Ran checklist; asked ATC For diversion to ZZZ. Landed ZZZ zero flap. No issues upon landing.


Second narrative: Cass. Flap/Stab miscompare. Flap asymmetry. Asked ATC to hold and work on flap issue.  Ran checklist. Then asked for diversion to ZZZ.


Synopsis: Gulfstream V flight crew reported as Flap/Slat Miscompare Light during descent and diagnosed this as a flap asymmetry problem. Flight crew elected to request priority handling and diverted for a precautionary landing.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were [cleared] to takeoff from runway XXC. During the climb; on heading 260; I observed that the CHT (Cylinder Head Temperature) #6 was raising until it got into the red line. I took controls and tried to hold the altitude in order to increase the airflow into the engine and cool it down [but] the CHT [was] still on the red zone. At that moment; I noticed there was a reduction of power and the engine started to vibrate on and off. As a result; I requested to ATC to cancel the IFR flight plan and requested the arrival in order to make an immediate landing. Landing was made [safely] and taxied to the ramp upon request from ZZZ tower.It is really important to be ready for any [unexpected] situation. Once I noticed what was going on with the engine; the request to fly back to ZZZ was [definitely] the right decision. It is really important to maintain always positive aircraft control and being calm all the time. Thankfully; my student and I were able to get out of the airplane and walk with no harm.




Synopsis: SR20 Flight Instructor reported engine malfunction after takeoff and returned to the departure airport for a safe landing.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passing FL230 in VNAV Climb FMC airspeed was set at 310 KIAS. As airspeed approached Vmo; power was reduced but the airspeed briefly passed Vmo by about 5 knots and for 3-5 seconds. Pilot flying was new to airplane and neither of us are flying much.  Pay closer attention to FMC inputs; fly more!


Second narrative: Entered climb speed in FMS of 310. Previous Econ climb was 257/.81.  I failed to enter .81 after 310/. As the aircraft climbed speed approached MMO at FL 230. Adjusted speed in FMS but the aircraft was empty and continued to accelerate. I manually reduced the throttles; but not enough we exceeded about 5 knots before we slowed down.New to the aircraft. I had not flown since OE ended. Fly more. But we all know the environment.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an over speed during departure and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; 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: Descending into ZZZ; encountered severe turbulence around 11;000 feet. Aircraft was out of control for approximately 10-15 seconds. A very challenging approach then followed with winds 210 at 23 gust 36 knots. Automation was unable to keep up with conditions. Transfer of controls from First Officer to Captain occurred around 1500 feet AGL. Approach was stabilized with a normal landing. Neither the First Officer nor [I] felt that it would be safe to continue our flight; so subsequent fatigue calls were made after all appropriate actions on the ground were complied with.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported severe turbulence during approach.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During level off from the descent the right [engine] was found to have flamed out. [We] landed single engine at our filed destination; normal single engine landing. I think heavy rain caused the right engine to flame out due to low idle engine idle or a bad fuel control unit.




Synopsis: A BE90's right engine flamed out during descent; either because of heavy rain or a bad fuel control unit; so the pilot landed single engine at the filed destination.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There is/are no DP's (Departure Procedures) used or designed for IFR propeller driven aircraft at LAS. Our current procedures are to assign initial heading to all props. The LOA between LAS and co-located L30 requires LAS Clearance Delivery to solicit a VFR climb from all IFR prop aircraft issued headings. During a congested 5 minutes of issuing clearances to jets and props; I did not solicit a VFR climb request from a light twin pilot. There was no loss of separation; vectoring or MVA issues. A Deviation was determined to have occurred. While I acknowledge the missed instruction; I also believe that VFR climb requests are mentioned in the 7110.65 in reference to aircraft departing a Satellite airport without adequate RADAR coverage. I can't believe other major airports don't have prop DP's either. It's my opinion that requesting pilots respond 'yay' or 'nay' to 'Verify this clearance that you can maintain your own terrain and obstruction avoidance'; even in marginal VFR weather. Issue prop aircraft DP's or design a prop DP for use in either IFR or VFR weather! Quit placing extra workload upon controllers due to the lack of adequate procedures.




Synopsis: LAS Controller expressed concern regarding the current prop departure procedure; i.e. the issuance of headings; adding formalized procedures should be published for LAS propeller aircraft.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying the CHSLY 4 Arrival into CLT. While meeting multiple speed and altitude restrictions we lost situational awareness temporarily and ATC called to ask what our current speed was. We answered truthfully that our speed was around 315 and were then informed we should be flying 'published speeds.' We immediately slowed to the published speed of 250 knots to comply. We apologized to ATC and had no further incidents. Stay focused during complicated arrival and departure procedures.




Synopsis: Small Transport First Officer reported they failed to comply with charted speed on arrival into CLT; citing multiple speed and crossing restrictions as contributing.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; MEL; Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Aircraft was towed to gate approximately 30-minutes prior to scheduled departure; an MEL on the Fuel Quantity Indicator had been cleared overnight. This was a previous Air Carrier's MD-83 series aircraft. I noticed the Fuel Quantity Indicator that had been installed was incorrect for this type of aircraft. Five days previous; I found the same problem with the same aircraft; an incorrect Fuel Quantity Indicator installed. We had the problem taken care of prior to departure in both occurrences. In talking with the mechanics in ZZZ; it seems that the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) may be showing the wrong part number for the Fuel Quantity Indicator for this type of MD-80. I would hope this could be looked into and corrected soon since this has occurred twice within a short period of time.




Synopsis: A Captain questions whether the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) may be showing the wrong Part Number (P/N) for their MD-83 series aircraft after two occurrences where he noticed incorrect Fuel Quantity Indicators had been installed on the same airplane.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Possible over speed of slats. ATL had severe thunderstorms and low ceilings. Approaching RMG; we were instructed to slow to minimum practicable and prepare for holding at the VOR. I slowed to 12-15 KTS above footer. We received holding instructions at RMG and entered holding. While in holding we were given several descents. I kept adjusting the bug to 12-15 KTS above footer as we descended. On our second turn in holding; upon turning to the downwind leg; I noticed the airspeed slowing to within 5 KTS above footer. We were at approximately FL230. Winds at altitude were 100 KTS out of the west. We had just met the southeast bug on the airspeed tape and with the airspeed decreasing; I ordered slats extend and placed the Hydraulic Auxiliary and Transfer switches on. After the airspeed footer lowered; I set the bug about 15 KTS below the southeast bug. The aircraft stabilized and we were given a heading out of holding; further descent; and subsequent speed increase to 300 KTS. We cleaned up the aircraft and the remainder of the flight was uneventful. I was concerned with the possibility of misinterpreting the speed of the slat extension at altitude. When arriving at the gate I notified Maintenance Control of a possible slat over speed. Maintenance arrived at the aircraft and interviewed me. Maintenance stated if I did not get the clacker or other warning then there was no overspeed. However; Maintenance checked the maintenance side of the MCDU for any events and found none. No logbook entry was made and we continued with the remainder of the pairing.I believe the airspeed bleed off was due to the turn into a 100 KTS tailwind. Automation was too slow to compensate for the airspeed bleed off. The FAA was aboard giving us a line 'check' and had no comment about the event and said we had excellent crew coordination.Looking back at the situation; I would have set a higher speed above the footer; at least 20 KTS. This would provide a safe pad for the automation to catch-up.




Synopsis: After slowing at the direction of ATC in a holding pattern at altitude; the flight crew of a B-717 noted the airspeed dropping rapidly and extended the slats as a precaution. The Captain requested Maintenance to inspect the aircraft due to a possible slat overspeed.