elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Mid way through the flight; the Captain noticed a LOW HYD LEVEL 2 MSG on the EICAS. We reviewed the procedure for it; and discussed what our actions would be should we lose pressure and the entire hydraulic system as per the procedure for loss of Hydraulic System 1 or 2. As we monitored the fluid quantity; we saw the quantity was decreasing. After reaching a quantity of zero; we noticed the pressure began to gradually drop. It was not until checking in with Approach that we lost all pressure to Hydraulic System 2. At this time we declared an emergency with Approach Control. The Captain made the landing without any incident or difficulties. And we were able to taxi to the gate under our own power. The Captain did an excellent job of managing threats by briefing well ahead of time what we would do in case of a loss of hydraulics in System 2. We kept everyone in the loop including Dispatch; Flight Attendant; and ATC when appropriate. Because we discussed as a crew what our actions would be well in advance of the hydraulic system failure; we were able to easily manage a normally high workload phase of flight. I learned a lot from the Captain's leadership and forward thinking. I will be sure to incorporate this in my flying by taking action and thinking ahead of the aircraft to manage threats before they happen.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 EICAS alerted LOW HYD LEVEL 2 at cruise so crew briefed emergency procedures in advance of the arrival and when the quantity indicated zero; declared an emergency and completed the approach well prepared for any eventuality.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We flew from ZZZ to ZZZ1. We a made visual approach to Runway XX in VMC conditions. Upon landing as I transitioned to brakes and thrust reversers; two pigs ran across the runway directly in front of us. They ran perpendicularly across the runway east to west. I made a slight turn to left; while maintaining control on the runway; in an effort to avoid them. Best guess is we were around 80 knots ground speed at impact. It looked like we would clear the first pig; however we braced for impact with the second pig. We only felt a slight impact; at first we thought it may have been the anti skid brakes; and that we had avoided both pigs.After the slight impact braking and taxi in was normal. There were no cockpit or tactile indications of a problem. After shutdown inspection revealed that the gear door was missing. Airport ops recovered the door and a dead pig on the runway. The departure of the door caused some damage to the underside of the wing by the gear well.




Synopsis: Corporate jet Captain reported hitting a wild pig on landing roll out.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OXC.Airport, CT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D OXC
ATC / advisory: CTAF OXC
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While approaching to land at OXC. We noticed what appeared to be a VASI on the left side of Runway 36. There was a red light over a white light. Knowing that the PAPI has been NOTAM'd out we thought that this was strange. Continued approach and landing without incident. Found out as we got closer that the white light was atop the windsock and the red light was atop the DME transmitter shed. There is a possibility of losing vertical situational awareness with this layout. The airport is currently under construction and I'm sure this will change.




Synopsis: Corporate aircraft Pilot reported confusing lighting on top of airport structures.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Earlier this week I was developing a refresher briefing item regarding the proper separation from adjacent airspace boundaries less than 40 NM from the antenna (1.5 miles) and more than 40 NM from the antenna (2.5 miles). This topic had come up because of the improper application of this type of separation during a skills check conducted by one of my FLMs several days ago. We had discovered that some employees were misunderstanding the paragraph (7110.65 para. 5-5-4-a-3) that allowed 3 miles separation between aircraft up to 60 NM from the RADAR antenna when using single site ASR-9 with Mode S. Apparently the thinking was that because we could use 'reduced' separation between aircraft; then we could also use 'reduced' 1.5 NM separation from the airspace boundary out to 60 NM when using single site ASR-9 with Mode S. An FLM approached me and advised me that while researching the topic in the previous paragraph he discovered that several of our STARS video maps incorrectly displayed 3 NM radius rings around obstructions outside of 40 NM when they should have been 5 NM radius rings instead (in accordance with 7110.65 para 5-5-9 SEPARATION FROM OBSTRUCTIONS). I reviewed the issue and concur with the FLM; it appears that we have been operating with incorrect MVA and video maps. Recommendation: 1. we already have an overlay STARS video map that displays a 5 NM radius around every obstruction more than 40 NM from the ASR-9 antenna. 2. We immediately advised all employees to display map at all times and use the 5 NM radius rings for separation from obstructions. 3. We have added a carryover item to our facility log to remind operational employees of the mandatory use of map. 4. We have developed a change NOTICE to our facility SOPs to require the use of map until our video maps and MVA charts can be corrected and have placed the change NOTICE in CEDAR as a mandatory briefing item. 5. We will promptly begin the process of correcting our erroneous video maps and MVA charts. 6. The local NATCA FACREP has been briefed on this issue and has participated in the development of corrective procedures/briefing items.




Synopsis: TRACON Manager reported a recent discovery regarding the incorrect clearance depictions on facility video maps. The reporter listed a number of actions being taken to correct the deficiency.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: KZAK.ARTCC, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A KZAK
ATC / advisory: Center KZAK
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Enroute to ZZZ on R576 on a daytime flight in VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions). Flight planned altitude was FL430 to DADIE waypoint then climb to FL450 by DIALO waypoint. Approaching DADIE the Pilot Flying confirmed the plan to initiate a constant mach climb to FL450 by DIALO and asked for FL450 to be set in the altitude preselect which was accomplished. The Pilot Monitoring initiated the required voice position report via HF to [Oakland Oceanic]. Communication was difficult on the primary HF (High Frequency) frequency and it took several exchanges to confirm the position report. The PF (Pilot Flying) was monitoring VHF (Very High Frequency) frequencies 123.45 and 121.50 during the position report and initiated a climb to FL450 assuming the Pilot Monitoring had communicated the climb to FL450. Due to the distraction of the HF position report the Pilot Monitoring neglected to request a climb to FL450 and focused on completing the navigation log following the HF communication. Upon reporting the next position report at DIALO [Oakland Oceaninc] queried the altitude which was confirmed as FL450 and the crew realized they had not received clearance confirmation to make the flight planned climb from FL430 to FL450. ATC re-cleared the flight to maintain FL450 and reiterated a clearance was required to initiate the climb. The confusion caused by the difficulty with the HF communication associated with the position report at DADIE contributed to the error.




Synopsis: Citation flight crew experienced an HF radio issue that resulted in a clearance deviation.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While B Flight Attendant did a second walk through the main cabin after the first beverage cart she noticed the passenger in seat; did not have her mask on.  B Flight Attendant requested that she put her mask on. Passenger stated she was drinking her beer.  B Flight Attendant informed passenger that she needed to put her mask up between bites and sips. Passenger pulled mask up after rolling her eyes. A few minutes later the passenger came to the back galley (with her mask down) to request a refund for her beer since 'she is not allowed to drink it'.  At this time she did not bring an unopened can to the back. She was holding an open partially dented can. I did not refund the beer. I informed her she could finish her beer and put her mask up between sips.  This is a policy that had been announced three times already during the flight. Passenger took her beer into the lav. Passenger asked for my business card. I did not have one. Passenger asked for my full name and I gave it to her with the flight number.  When passenger came to the galley she had her mask down. I asked her to pull up her mask. And requested that she keep it on while talking with the crew. She pulled it up.  This passenger felt my request was unreasonable. She will be writing in to complain about me. I reiterated that the mask policy is a federal regulation. This passenger was wearing a gator instead of a mask.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger problem related to the passenger not wearing a mask.
Date: 201507
Location: XLL.Airport, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ABE
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was PIC in back seat of  glider on tow on climb out. This was a training flight with instructor in front seat. I was on tow behind a Pawnee. At around 1000 FT on a westbound heading I detected a biplane heading south at 1000 MSL; closure rate was significant. I called 'traffic' and released tow while turning hard right. The tow plane began a descending turn to the left and thereby probably missed impacting the southbound biplane. All airplanes made normal landings back at 1N9.




Synopsis: Glider pilot reported an NMAC while he was climbing out under tow from XLL.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During gate departure from ZZZ; passenger refused to comply with mask policy.  The jet bridge was brought back to the aircraft and the passenger removed. The passenger was not compliant with face covering policy.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that a passenger refused to comply with face mask policy and was removed from the flight before departure.
Date: 201906
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C SJC
ATC / advisory: Tower SJC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we taxied for takeoff to hold short Runway 30R at SJC and switched to Tower frequency; I noticed there was an aircraft on final for Runway 30R. To let that aircraft know that I had them in sight and recognized that they were going to land on 30R instead of the normal 30L; I turned off my taxi lights; holding short of the runway. Seconds later; SJC Tower cleared us for takeoff from Runway 30R! I exclaimed to the FO (First Officer) 'This guy is on final to 30R!' Just then the aircraft on final told the Tower that they were landing on 30R. There was no immediate response from the Tower; so my FO transmitted on Tower frequency that we were going to hold short of Runway 30R. As we watched the landing aircraft fly past our cockpit; while holding short of the runway; SJC Tower again cleared us for takeoff on 30R! Not line up and wait but cleared for takeoff! The landing aircraft again chimed in that they had just landed and were rolling out on 30R. Our clearance then changed to line up and wait and after the landing aircraft cleared the runway; we were then given a third takeoff clearance. We accepted that one and departed without further incident.The procedures in effect to prevent runway incursions at our airline and at the landing aircraft's airline obviously worked well in this case. I don't know what ATC's procedures are; but situational awareness appears to have broken down a bit this time. The aircraft on final was obviously cleared to land on 30R before we switched to Tower frequency. Perhaps there was a Controller change in the interim or some other distraction occurring in the Tower. In any case a potentially hazardous clearance was issued twice in one scenario.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported being cleared for takeoff with an aircraft on short final on the same runway.
Date: 201906
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: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cylinder Head
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed ZZZ. I climbed to 6500 ft MSL on a route direct to the mainland upper peninsula. While all onboard passengers were wearing PFDs (Personal Floating Device) for this section; I flew a high and circuitous route to minimize my over water risk. While about 18 NM east of ZZZ1; the engine became very loud (banging); rough running; and the aircraft began to shake significantly. I already had the frequency prepared in case of an emergency and I immediately called Center and told them of my current situation and that I was looking to possibly make a forced landing on a beach or the highway. I adjusted the prop control and mixture and it had no effect on the condition of the engine operation. I felt it was only a matter of time before the engine seized and needed to land ASAP. I pushed the 'nearest' button on my GPS and saw that ZZZ1 was approximately 5 minutes away given my descent rate and slight tailwind. There were suitable roads and beaches between my present position and the field. I decided to try to make the field and notified Center of my intentions to do so. I landed straight in at ZZZ1 on Runway XX with a tailwind and the engine running rough and not making full power. I was no longer able to communicate with Center while on the ground at ZZZ1 (although I could hear them; they couldn't hear me) and relayed that we were safely on the ground through an airliner passing overhead. I heard the airliner make the radio call and transmission and Center acknowledge it. It turns out we lost the head off of cylinder #1 causing the banging; roughness and loss of power. As the situation went; I felt it couldn't have gone any better.




Synopsis: A Cessna 172 pilot reported having to make a forced landing due to the failure of an engine cylinder head.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We showed at XA:10 in ZZZ. We walked onto the plane and there were fumes present. After Maintenance came onboard he said we were done with that plane. The entire crew waited for further instructions. Eventually we were told never mind we were good to go. The Mechanic had deferred the APU. After conferring with the Duty Chief on whether it was a good idea to operate a plane with repeated fume events he suggested we do it. I elected to do a run up with no customers onboard. We had to wait until another plane departed before the ground crew could assist with a start. As soon as the air was selected on we had fumes throughout the cabin.The plane had multiple fume events. I should not be asked to try and operate a plane with multiple events when the only corrective action is deferring the APU.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a fumes event during pre-flight.