elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On our [takeoff roll] I saw and smelled smoke coming from under the glareshield by the Captain's EFIS control panel. The V1 call had not been made at 131 or 133 KTS and; at approximately 127 KTS; the abort was made and the aircraft stopped [on the runway]. ATC was notified of what happened and told them we needed the fire trucks. Also; I made a PA to remain seated until we [evaluated] the situation. We ran the appropriate checklist and the smoke and fumes subsided. The OPC was referenced for the reject and we made sure fire personnel remained clear of the main wheels. After communicating with the fire personnel; we were told that the exterior of the aircraft was good except the brakes were scanned with high temperatures. We communicated with Dispatch by ACARS about the high speed reject. We felt it was safe to move the aircraft back to the terminal since we got the okay from fire personnel. Also; the smoke had dissipated. We were followed back to the gate by fire trucks for safety reasons. While taxiing in; Operations was contacted and told that no ground personnel should get near the main wheels due to the heat in case the fuse plugs melted. Also; the fire personnel scanned the cockpit with a heat scanner to check temperatures. They found the temperature in the area where the smoke was coming from showed a much higher temperature on the Captain's EFIS area as opposed to the First Officer's side. We spoke with Maintenance; Dispatch; [and] Chief Pilot. All passengers were deplaned at the gate with no further issues.


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported a high speed rejected takeoff (127 KTS; just under V1) because of smoke in the cockpit.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GSP.TRACON, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D GMU
ATC / advisory: TRACON GSP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was turned and cleared for the ILS Approach. After the clearance was given; the pilot advised he had the runway in sight. The developmental questioned the pilot and asked if he also had a different airport in sight at 12 o'clock and 5 miles. The pilot advised he had the wrong airport in sight and that he would continue with the ILS approach.  We have had several instances within the past month where pilots have tried to land on the closed runway at the wrong airport when they have been cleared for approach into the nearby airport; even if the aircraft is on an instrument approach. The runway at the wrong airport has been closed for decades but pilots still confuse it for the runway at the nearby airport. In addition to controllers properly pointing out the airports in close proximity; it may be beneficial for the airport to put on their ATIS not to confuse the closed runway with their runway. Also depict the closed runway on the ILS approach chart since many pilots seem to quit flying their instruments as soon as they see a runway.




Synopsis: GSP Approach Controller reported that pilots often confuse Runway 35 at GYH; a closed runway 6 NM away; for Runway 1 at GMU.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: RAVNN 3 RNAV arrival into BWI has several hard altitudes instead of at or above altitudes. On an aircraft like the one we flew without VNAV capability this requires a lot of pilot monitoring and vertical speed changes to make the mandatory altitudes. This means all other duties are on the back burner while we try to adhere to the clearance. I was unable to brief the approach until low altitude because I had to insure proper altitudes. This is a safety hazard as too much pilot attention is devoted to flying the STAR.Make the altitudes AT OR ABOVE ALTITUDES.




Synopsis: A pilot flying the BWI RAVNN 3 in a non VNAV capable aircraft commented on the high workload safety aspect when flying an RNAV arrival with hard altitude crossing constraints.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAT.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: Tower SAT
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: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on visual approach to SAT we were given a runway change. We executed the runway change in the FMC and verified the changes.  As the Captain intercepted the localizer we began our approach. As the glide slope started to come in we started our descent. I could start to see that we were visually low on approach and stated that a correction was necessary. He also verified this and began to correct the altitude. The GPWS warning was activated around the time of the correction. We had both the runway and Tower in sight as we corrected. The Tower Controller noticed our altitude and informed us that the 13R ILS was OTS. We landed without further incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning as well as a low altitude alert from ATC on a visual approach to SAT.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While setting up for a water landing on a river; I saw two boats on the west side of the river so I turned approximately 30 degrees to the left where the water surface was clear of any boats and proceeded to set up for a landing.  As I approached the water at about 10 feet of altitude; I caught a glimpse of a boat out of my side of the canopy directly below me. I applied full power and estimated I missed the boat by a couple of feet.  I then circled around and proceeded back to the airport to land.  The area where I was going to land was totally clear so the only conclusion I can come up with is that the boat saw me landing and proceeded over to my landing area from behind me.  There are many very fast boats on this river and my landing speed was only 45 knots. I have made over a thousand water landings and never had this happen before.  Always look for boats and other obstructions and land well clear of them.  I will have to scan the area better and make sure no boats are headed to where I plan to land.  If they are curious about an airplane landing on the water; and head towards my landing area; I'll have to land someplace else.




Synopsis: Seaplane pilot reports a near collision with a boat while attempting a river landing. The intended landing area had appeared clear but the reporter surmises that a very fast boat had intentionally obstructed the landing. A go-around is initiated and the reporter returns to his airport.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Attitude Indicator(Gyro/Horizon/ADI)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: IMC at FL270. Passenger in copilot seat inadvertently disengaged autopilot; which went unnoticed by me for several seconds. By the time I noticed it; the plane was in a significant spiral. We had done at least 1 or 2 360-degree turns and lost significant altitude (1;000-2;000 feet). Center came on inquiring whether everything was OK. I responded Negative and asked to call them back when I had regained control of the plane. My problem and confusion was compounded by a vacuum pump failure of both primary and backup vacuums; causing my backup Artificial Horizons to tumble. Once back under control; regaining altitude and heading; I asked Center for vectors to nearest. I was directed to ZZZ and made an uneventful instrument approach and landing. We were able to obtain overnight and install a new vacuum pump. After multiple checkouts of the autopilot; it was declared airworthy and we proceeded to destination. Enroute my passenger thinks he bumped the trim switches while reaching for the vacuum gyro compass. That would cause the autopilot to disengage. Autopilot disengagement produces an audible beep in the cabin; but it can easily go unnoticed under noise canceling headsets; especially if there is any other conflicting audio distraction through the headsets at the time. I have contacted an avionics shop to have the autopilot audio output routed through the audio panel and headsets; and to add a visual warning light to alert the pilot of a disconnect.




Synopsis: PA46 pilot experiences autopilot disengagement along with loss of backup gyro horizon a FL270 resulting in at least one 360 degree turn and the loss of 1;000-2;000 feet before it is detected and recovery commenced.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I've been going in and out of ZZZ as a Part 121 Pilot for over XX years; so the 'unique' communication styles that are on display day-in-and-day-out on the Ground Control frequency come as no surprise. That said; yesterday; while taxiing out I was; once more; forced to listen to the Ground Controller's complete lack of professionalism; and I couldn't help but think of the multitude of ways in which his words and his tone were a compromise to safety. Everything from admonishing pilots for not taxiing fast enough; to embarrassing others for not crossing runways quickly enough; to shaming those pilots who dared to ask questions for clarity.This Ground Controller was/is creating UNSAFE circumstances. These hard-working professional pilots are simply trying to safely transport their passengers from point A to point B. They need ATC assistance to do so; not scolding; shaming and yelling! The Ground Controller I heard yesterday behaved in a way that is antithetic to his profession and the public interest. He is there to serve the public. We (Pilots) are not there to serve him. At the very least; he needs retraining! Furthermore; this notion that; 'Well; it's ZZZ; so that's the way they are up there!' is not an acceptable position to take. To my mind; there is only one standard for safety!




Synopsis: Pilot reported that the Ground Controller was behaving unprofessionally; creating an unsafe environment.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Second aircraft: Gulfstream Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C560 landed on Runway 01 and exited on Taxiway Q. A Gulfstream landed on Runway 01 after the C560 cleared the runway at Taxiway Q. Upon passing the hold short line; the C560 switched to Ground Control frequency and made a 'U' turn on Taxiway Q; back towards Runway 01. Upon seeing this; I immediately told the Gulfstream; who had touched down onto Runway 01 at this point; to stop. The Gulfstream came to a full stop between Taxiways D and F. Both aircraft exited Runway 01 and taxied to parking without incident. It should be stressed to pilots during their training and careers the importance of working together with ATC. Perhaps he was confused about the airport layout; but there is nothing wrong with asking for progressive taxi instructions instead of making poor decisions with dire consequences.




Synopsis: TEB Controller described a potential ground conflict when traffic exiting the runway initiated a 'U' turn toward the landing runway; the reporter directed a subsequent landing aircraft to stop on roll out.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence; Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 K (231) / Encore
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Workload
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I received a flight weather briefing for my intended route. Bases were forecast to be 7;500 to 8;000 FT and scattered thunderstorms. I was en route climbing and I made a decision to climb over a section of cloud cover that was next to some building cumulus clouds. I commenced climbing and thought I would be over it by 11;000 FT. This put me in close proximity to [a restricted area]; that I was avoiding since I knew it was 'hot' up to 15;000 FT. I was then in an air mass that was building and taking me up higher and I was climbing to stay clear of the clouds. I attempted to turn around and made a 360 degree turn and found that where I had entered was now higher then the original flight path. I was now in a narrow canyon of clouds and to stay clear of them I was forced even higher. I was trying to get my oxygen system working and I was really worried about getting in to the clouds because every time I got close to them it was really turbulent. I was not talking to ATC for flight following and I did not have the frequency available to call for a clearance and I was afraid to look down into the cockpit to find it on my charts should I inadvertently go into the clouds. I topped out at around 19;000 FT and then started to descend out of this area. I was too embarrassed to call ATC for help once I cleared the area. This was a foolish decision since I should have been on flight following the entire route and should have never been in this situation. I was surprised to find that the forecast was not as I expected with scattered thunderstorms; just this one big cell/air mass on my intended flight path. I placed too much emphasis on the ability of the aircraft to climb fast enough to get me over it and underestimated the ability of the clouds to build so fast. [This was] very poor decision making.




Synopsis: M-20K pilot; expecting only scattered thunderstorms on a VFR flight; encountered fast-building cells which he was unable to avoid by a 180-degree turn and was barley able to avoid by climbing to FL190. Pilot made no contact with ATC.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT; Tower RNO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a visual approach to Runway 16L while descending to 7000 ft. we received a GPWS warning. I leveled off around 7;100 ft. and had the terrain in sight the entire time. After passing the hill I started a descent and was unstable so we went around.We were expecting the RNAV Y 16L but were taken off because of departing traffic on Runway 34R. This lead to an extended downwind and base to final. We were much farther out than we briefed or expected. When we finally turn final I used the RNAV 16 X approach plate for distance and altitudes. Over 'BADPE' fix the altitude is 6900 ft. I set 7;000 and started to descend my rate was too much and we received the GPWS warning. [Pilot flying suggests] when operating in mountainous terrain on an RNAV approach and you are taken off that approach see if there is another approach that is better suited for your new location and situation; and familiarize yourself with it before even starting a visual approach.




Synopsis: A-319 Captain reported a CFIT event during approach that was extended due to departure traffic.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LYH.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D LYH
ATC / advisory: TRACON ROA
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was direct to KILBE at 3;000 feet for the ILS RW 04 Approach into KLYH. Got the 'Terrain Terrain; Terrain Terrain; Terrain Terrain Pull UP' aural messages. The RA [Resolution Advisory] was erratic at 3;000 feet fluctuating between 2;250-1;500 [feet] the first time. We disconnected the auto pilot and climbed to about 4;000 feet to ensure altitude clearance and to clear the warning. Then; we requested vectors to try again. The second time it did it again but we only got 'Terrain Terrain' one time; and the RA was fluctuating between 2;250-1;400 feet. [We] didn't receive the GPWS [Ground Proximity Warning System] alert and the RA corrected itself and the fluctuations around 1;100 feet. Landed without incident. ATC requested our tail number before frequency change to Tower.[We] Complied with the GPWS and climbed aircraft and requested vectors to restart the approach.No [suggestions] at this time due to the circumstances. [We] got the warning when we shouldn't have; but complied anyways due to IMC conditions. [We] requested box pattern to restart the approach and landed without incident. The RA was erratic and uncontrollable by the pilots.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported Ground Proximity Warning System alert on approach and made corrective actions.