elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MKC.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D MKC
ATC / advisory: Tower MKC
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At 4.9 DME from MKC and at 1900 MSL; the Pilot Flying noticed a large quadcopter at our 10 o'clock position from the flight deck. Approximate separation was 500 ft laterally and 100 ft below the aircraft. Due to parallax while on the approach it was not possible to determine if the UAS was maneuvering but it was determined that the incident UAS was not a threat and no aircraft approach adjustment was necessary. The incident location and altitude was relayed to Tower.




Synopsis: Corporate jet Captain reported a close encounter with a quadcopter UAS on approach to MKC.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Selected the SEEVR TWO RNAV Arrival into DFW on FMC.Jepps shows NECKK on SEEVR TWO RNAV Arrival (19 Jun 15) as being between FL280 - 240.The FMC showed only below FL280 at NECKK.Resolve FMC/Jepps discrepancy for NECKK on SEEVR TWO.




Synopsis: A B767 FMC SEEVR TWO RNAV lists the NECKK altitude constraint below FL280 while the Jeppesen chart NECKK constraint is between FL280 - FL240.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared to descend via DYAMD2 arrival. After FLOWZ maintain 11000. Then the clearance that we heard was Descend to 5000; after ARCHI Cleared for ILS 28R approach. I put 5000 in MCP window; FO engaged VNAV and stated that all altitudes are protected as the FMA was in VNAV PTH and I concurred. As we were descending thru 8000 to cross ARCHI at 7000 per the approach ATC asked for our altitude stating that we 'should' have been given maintain 8000 until ARCHI which is nonstandard per both DYAMD2 arrival and ILS 28R approach. If we were given 8000 until ARCHI; neither the FO nor myself heard or understood this as intended.




Synopsis: B737 Captain is informed by NCT TRACON that the crossing restriction at ARCHI is 8000 feet while the DYAMD2 Arrival and the ILS 28R both show it as 7000 feet. The crew was below 8000 feet when informed.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D OGD
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inbound on the ILS [Runway] 03 practice approach into OGD. Tower had departing traffic off of [runway]17. Departing traffic told to fly runway heading and get us (ILS traffic) in sight. Departure aircraft reported us in sight. Tower then requested the traffic pass behind us to continue on their course to the northwest. Departing traffic then turned in front of us on the ILS with myself as the instructor having to take control from my student who was under the foggles and break off the approach to the south in order to avoid a closer occurrence.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor on training flight with student reported NMAC on approach.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: After taking over the assigned desk I received several phone and radio call from four flights. The flights arriving were receiving holding instructions and requesting info on where to divert. The flights departing were asking about rerouting due to weather conditions one of the departure issues was resolved; the other continued to be a problem. While dealing with the four flights I received an ACARS message regarding a sick passenger/medical emergency. The flight continued and later called for a patch with the POC. By this time two flights diverted and one returned to the gate. One of the diverted flights continued to be an issue for several hours due to FAR 117 flight crew legality. Operational control was maintained but became difficult with so much attention having to go to a few flights at one airport.Airline management has decided to put a greater emphasis on a high number of flight plan releases per desk rather than operational control and safety of flight.




Synopsis: Dispatcher stated that there were insufficient dispatchers to handle the workload.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was on initial approach on an IFR flight at dusk at approximately 1;500 feet AGL when engine surged then quit. Attempted restart after selecting different fuel tanks and fuel pumps failed. No suitable off-road landing area reachable. An area of open roadway sufficiently long for safe landing and with enough room to avoid power lines was selected and safely reached. No injuries sustained on or off aircraft; and no damage to aircraft or other property incurred. Loss of power confirmed due to fuel exhaustion.The aircraft was returned to service following extensive engine work; annual inspection and safety check flight 4.0 flight hours prior to incident. At the time fuel onboard was confirmed to be 120 gals. Flight was 2.0 flight hours. Prior to departure on subject flight; visual inspection of fuel load and drainage of fuel sumps and at time of incident fuel load indicated 36.7 gals remained.Subsequent maintenance inspection revealed electrical fuel pump discharging fuel overboard; prior to fuel totalizer. Fuel pump was subsequently determined by manufacturer to be unserviceable.Because of desire to keep temperatures low during break-in of 4 new cylinders; electrical fuel pump had been used during all 4 flight hours since aircraft was returned to service from annual inspection. There was no indication of a leak during pre-flight inspection as the fuel pump was not on at that time. I believe the issue should have been detected and corrected during annual inspection.

Callback: The reporter stated that this was the first flight after the annual inspection when this incident occurred. The reporter stated that when the aircraft was disassembled to transport it to the airport the mechanic found fuel stains inside the fuselage. The reporter stated he only got 4 hours of flight time from 120 gallons of fuel. The reporter also stated that it was determined that the electric fuel pump was the cause of the engine failure.



Synopsis: Pilot reported the engine shutdown inflight due to fuel starvation.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ONT.Tower, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the Arrival into ONT SoCal Approach assigned vectors to sequence behind a 747. We were vectored directly behind and above the preceding 747 for 26L when we were cleared for the visual approach to 26R. ATC advised to maintain visual separation. At that point; due to concerns of descending behind the heavy aircraft; I offset right of course and attempted to parallel the 747. My intention was to remain clear of the 747's wake vortices. As we continued the approach and began to converge with the other aircraft; ONT Tower issued clearance to S-turn to the right if necessary. At that point we were too close to the runway to make any effective maneuvers and still maintain a stabilized approach. We then received a 'Descend' RA and continued descending on the visual approach to 26R while the adjacent aircraft executed a climb and go-around from 26L. In retrospect I believe a better course of action would have been to discontinue the visual approach or ask for delay vectors to increase separation from the heavy aircraft. ATC should have issued more realistic vectors to sequence us further behind the 747.


Second narrative: Descending on the Arrival into ONT; SoCal Approach Control gave a maintain current HDG [instruction]. We visually acquired a 747 at our 12 o'clock position approximately 5 NMs. SoCal then gave us a right turn to a 140 HDG; then subsequently a 170 HDG that placed us at the 6 o'clock position of the 747 approximately 5 NMs behind. Once established on the 170 HDG; SoCal cleared us and the 747 visual approaches; 747 to Runway 26L and us to 26R and told us 'Caution wake turbulence and maintain visual separation with the 747'. The Captain did not want to be in a position to be at a 45 degree angle behind the 747; which would've increased the chances of getting into the wake of the 747; so as we were descending for the approach we received a descend RA and Aircraft Y executed a go-around for a climb RA. When we noticed that it would be challenging to do the approach and simultaneously staying out if the heavy aircraft's wake turbulence; should've asked the Controller for a vector or turn before starting the final portion of the approach.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported receiving an RA on approach.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: UIM.VOR, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Airspace: Class E ZFW
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The UIM VOR is out of service; and listed as such in the en route NOTAMs. However; the VOR approaches for F51 and 3F9; which use the UIM VOR as primary navigation have no NOTAM indicating they are unusable. A route search on the FAA NOTAM page does not pull up the UIM VOR NOTAM unless the corridor selected in the search is wide enough to cover the location of the UIM VOR. When I first conducted the route search; I used the default 4 NM setting. The UIM NOTAM did not show up in that search. Had I not known from previous experience the VOR had been out of service; I would not have expanded the search. My safety concern is a pilot could miss the important information about the VOR out of service and; therefore; the instrument approaches at F51 and 3F9 are unusable. I recommend the approaches to F51 and 3F9 be listed unusable by NOTAM.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported UIM VOR is NOTAMed out of service.  However; the VOR approaches for F51 and 3F9 which use UIM VOR as primary navigation are not NOTAMed out of service/unusable.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Positional / Directional Sensing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approaching ZZZZZ1 waypoint the first officer established VHF communication with ATC. ATC announced radar contact proceed ZZZZZ1 ZZZZZ2. I selected direct ZZZZZ2 with abeam points just after we passed ZZZZZ1. Next active waypoint ZZZZZ3 was 38 miles ahead. As we approached ZZZZZ3 I selected Economy cruise and executed the command while voicing my actions to the first officer. I was monitoring the progress page to see what our new ETA and fuel remaining projections would be with the new speed. The new time was +12 minutes and new fuel was -4;000 lbs. I was pointing this out to the first officer when the FMC blanked and refigured the ETA and fuel back to the original estimates. Our original speed was Mach .84 and new Economy speed was Mach .834; therefore I didn't expect much change in ETA or fuel remaining. After the FMC momentary blanking and re computing ETA and fuel; the autopilot began a sharp turn to the right. The first officer and I both said; why are we turning? The first officer was quick to push heading select and dial a heading towards the magenta line. Our deviation off the line was less than 2 nm. Once we were established on the line I reselected LNAV and the autopilot functioned properly for remainder of the flight. We did not notify ATC of the less than 2 mile deviation. We did contact our maintenance personnel with a full report via ACARS. We also made a maintenance entry for the next crew. I referenced our Flight Manual bulletin; of which I am familiar; which cautions certain actions to preclude any uncommanded turns in LNAV. This bulletin is 4 years old and I think it's time to fix this anomaly. The bulletin warns against making vertical or lateral changes in the FMC when within 4 nm of an active waypoint. I AM familiar with this bulletin and believed making a speed change wouldn't be an issue. This should be addressed.


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


Synopsis: Boeing 777 flight crew reported after selecting 'Econ Cruise;' the Flight Management Computer blanked and recomputed the ETA and fuel; followed by the autopilot commencing an uncommanded right turn.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed ZZZZ Runway X Center on the SID. During the takeoff briefing I brought it up to the Captain (PF) and briefed the 220 knot restriction at [fix] on the SID.  After takeoff PF called for flaps 1 a few miles prior to the turn during acceleration. I asked to verify that he wanted that. After delaying slightly; I thought we were close enough to the turn that it would not be a problem; and set the flaps to 1. We were at flaps 1 for approximately 30 seconds before the speed bug advanced and we began accelerating again. The PF should not have called for; and I never should have positioned the flap lever out of position 5 until after the turn was complete and we were accelerating again. Additionally; the Relief Officer should have spoken up and brought the error to our attention as well. We thoroughly debriefed the error during cruise and again after the flight. Recency of experience was a contributing factor as all of us had not been flying as much due to COVID-19.


Second narrative: Departing [Runway] X Center ZZZZZ on the SID.  The departure was briefed by the PF with input from the PM at the gate to include that it would be a Flaps 5 T.O. and with the low speed at fix of 220 knots the need to delay flap retraction from 5 to 1 until passing ZZZZZ1 [fix]. After takeoff; climbing out we were accelerating and the PF called for Flaps 1 and the PM raised the flaps from 5 to 1 with a minimum flaps 1 speed of around 230 knots.  When the call was made we were accelerating but we were about 2 miles from the fix with a speed of 220 knots.  The PF had to stop the acceleration at 220 knots (10 knots below flaps 1 speed) for less than 30 sec before he could continue to accelerate to the flaps 1 min speed.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a flap configuration problem on departure resulting in a speed deviation. First Officer made reference to lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SUA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E PBI
ATC / advisory: TRACON PBI
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When vectored inbound to Stuart from the east; I observed a drone flying just off the left wing. We advised approach control and then tower at SUA of the placement and altitude of the drone and gave them a description.




Synopsis: Corporate jet pilot reported a near miss with a UAS while on a vector east of SUA.