elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On initial check in with SCT Approach; we were told to slow to 190 KTS about 30 miles from the field. We were following another carrier for the ILS 26L. SCT changed our runway to 26R; slowed us to 170; and cleared us for the approach. Tower asked if we had the carrier in sight about 2;000 FT AGL. We informed Tower we were IMC. Tower instructed us to go around (about 1;500 FT AGL) with a climbing left turn heading 180 and direct PDZ when able. We were handed off to SCT and they asked about the assigned 180 heading. We told them our clearance; but they seemed irritated at us. Two separate Controllers asked about the clearance and commented; with over 30 years and 22 years working SCT; that they have never seen anything like that. We were told the 180 heading put us head to head with Chico's localizer. We never received any TA's or noticed any traffic on TCAS close to us. We were cleared for an uneventful ILS to Runway 26R. After landing; a Supervisor apologized to us over the Tower frequency for the go-around. I called Tower once we arrived at the gate to advise them of SCT's concerns. The Tower Supervisor again apologized to us and explained the training that is going on there. I recommended on a go-around event; they should level us off and allow us to fly the published miss. This would have kept us clear of the other airport.


Second narrative: [Narative #2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air Carrier on final for ONT was issued go around instructions by the Tower only to be questioned by SCT Controllers regarding the assigned heading.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Air Cycle Machine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight Attendant 4 boarded and almost immediately smelled a burning electrical smell; when Flight Attendants 1;2;3 came aboard they confirmed smell and we notified First Officer who confirmed he smelled it too and went down to tarmac to check unit. Captain also smelled and called Maintenance. We were advised to leave aircraft and wait on jet bridge.  Name came and confirmed she smelled it too; she contacted Operations and they advised us to go to [the] clinic; after we asked several times; if they would be able to do the necessary tests for fume events; they reassured us it was the right place to go. we were unsuccessful in reaching [the] SAFETY line till after we had been at clinic for more than an hour already. SAFETY advised us we needed to go to ER not clinic. We then took a ride to ER. The First Officer was professional and helpful; the Captain unprofessionally dismissed us. Fume events need to be taken seriously and all stations and bases should have strict protocols on hand to deal with them. They need to be aware of where to send crews for correct testing as it is time sensitive.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant crew reported a fume event during preflight at the gate resulting in physiological symptoms.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MRI.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D MRI
ATC / advisory: Tower MRI
Second aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While switching to MRI Tower. After receiving VFR traffic advisories from Approach Control and being asked to contact MRI Tower. I was within 1/2 mile of Merrill Field when I encountered a single engine seaplane at 1-2 o'clock about a 1/4 mile; passing from my right to left. As we were closing in on each other; I made a slight descending turn as the other aircraft was climbing. It was apparent that we would miss each other and I had already begun slowing for approach to the MRI airport. I passed below and behind the other aircraft. I was surprised that neither Approach Control; nor MRI Tower mentioned the other aircraft at all. The other aircraft was likely talking to LHD Tower; and we met at the boundaries of the area where ATC normally switches us to Tower or Approach. I had an operating TCAS system and it neither depicted a hit nor gave an audible warning. The other aircraft probably did not have a transponder on; or it was inoperative. Although my TCAS couldn't pick up a primary oncy target; I'm certain Approach can. We were scarcely 5 miles from both MRI and LHD where the near hit occurred. I was also operating pulsing LED recognition lights as well as two beacons. The sun was directly behind me; as I was flying east and the other aircraft northwest. Wind at my quartering tail at about 20 KTS. If the other aircraft would have had an operating transponder; I would have received both an audible and visual alert on my G600 synthetic vision display. Moral of the story: vigilance is still important when you believe others are looking out for you!




Synopsis: The pilot of an airtaxi twin experienced an NMAC with a float plane in the airspace interface between Merrill Field and Lake Hood near ANC.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Aircraft component: PFD
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: In route to MYF on an IFR flight plan in VMC; I saw a DOD drone (inverted V tail) pass overhead approximately 1;000 [feet] above. At the same time; my Garmin G3000 PFD indicated that I had a large magnetic variation error; and in turn the PFD indicated that I was now flying to a new way point (TCH VOR) located in Utah; well off my flight plan between Northern and Southern California. Later and second way point in Montana was introduced. The MFD still showed the original flight plan; but the PFD was in conflict; which resulted in a loss of ability to fly an instrument approach of any kind; and loss of synthetic vision within the PFD. Had it not been a VMC day allowing me to fly a visual approach; I would have had to [advise ATC] - and find a way to land without any reliable approach capability.The system has since been checked and is operating correctly; but it seems pretty clear this was some type of interference / jamming arising from the DOD drone. Clearly; this is a significant risk to all aircraft; and because if occurred within the LA airspace it is a serious threat to safe flights




Synopsis: PA46 pilot reported after a UAV encounter the PFD in the aircraft produced a large navigational error. The reporter suspects GPS jamming.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Other school
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I entered the pattern at ZZZ from the NE. Upon checking in we heard one other aircraft in the pattern doing touch and goes. My student was flying and I was coordinating with the other aircraft on the radio. As my student and I entered 45 degree to left base [Runway] XY we could not get a visual on the the other aircraft that was on final XY. I instructed my student to perform a left 270 for separation. When we rejoined left base XY and gained visual on the other aircraft which was now on the go [Runway] XY. We called final XY and chose to shoot the landing to XY at intersection 1. At 100 feet AGL I noticed a landing light slightly below our altitude coming from the opposite direction. I took immediate control of the aircraft and performed a descending left turn to avoid the oncoming aircraft. We landed on taxiway 2 just north of taxiway 3. I successfully hailed the plane departing Runway XZ which informed me they 'had made an on the go call' and that they 'had a visual on us the entire time'. They made a call 'departing to the Northwest' and that was their last call on frequency. At no point did the aircraft departing RWY XZ take evasive actions.I contacted the CFI in the other plane that had performed the touch and go on Runway XY ahead of us and he confirmed he had not heard the aircraft departing XZ make any radio calls.




Synopsis: Helicopter Pilot reported a NMAC with an opposite direction aircraft at a non-towered airport. The opposite direction aircraft did not take any evasive action and did not announce; on CTAF; its intentions or position.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just prior to the final approach fix; I was unable to descend early enough to capture the glide slope from above. We were in IMC and the aircraft was fully configured for landing while descending through 3000 feet MSL at about 1700 FPM at the FAF. We were 400 feet too high as we needed to be at 2;600 MSL to be on the glide slope at that point so I decided to execute a go-around maneuver.Tower also saw that we were high and asked if we were going to be able to make it work. Our reply was that the First Officer (FO) notified ATC of our intention to go-around.We were instructed to climb and maintain 3;000 and turn left heading 270; however; since I had hit the Take-Off Go Around buttons and we were already around 3;000 feet and beginning to climb toward the command bars; I gained 500 feet over the course of the maneuver before adjusting our altitude back down to 3000 feet.ATC quickly asked us if we needed any assistance because of our altitude deviation and slow heading change so the FO replied that we were aware of the deviation and were correcting back to 3;000 while turning to heading 270. We continued the second approach and landed the aircraft safely.As Captain and pilot flying I needed to be more aware of my altitude in relation to the glide slope prior to the final approach fix. I also would have been well served to just hold altitude and stay on the localizer until obtaining the missed approach clearance from ATC.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported altitude and heading deviations while executing a go-around following an un-stabilized approach.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During rotation the fire bell turned on and could not be turned off. There was no other indication of a fire; i.e. no EICAS message or fire light on overhead panel. No power loss was seen in E1 or E2 and a normal takeoff profile was flown. We had a very hard time hearing each other in the cockpit and communicating with the Flight Attendant but we were able to communicate with ATC and Company Operations fine. We notified Departure of the issue and asked/received vectors back for a visual approach to Runway 32L. Upon landing the fire bell turned off. We had the emergency response team circle the aircraft once we stopped on the taxi way to verify there was no fire. Because the fire bell was so loud and could not be turned off; the cockpit became a very difficult place to communicate. Also we were in the air for a very short time and due to time constraints it was very difficult to determine if the Flight Attendant had prepared the cabin etc. Looking back on the event I could have taken a more reactive tone to communicate what the Captain would have wanted from the Flight Attendant and Ground Operations.




Synopsis: During takeoff an EMB-145 Fire Bell sounded which could not be silenced but with no accompanying light so an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport where the alert ceased upon landing.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLL.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Airspace: Class D CLL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was given false information about where I could fly my drone. I was told I would be okay if I was 2 miles away from the airport and under 400 feet.  I flew my drown 2.6 miles away from CLL Airport in College Station TX.  Although I was under the 400 feet limit I was within the 5 mile limits. I was informed about my mistake by the Manager of the Airport and was recommended to contact ASRS and report my problem. I was also given instructions on what to do in the future if I wanted to fly my drone around the area.




Synopsis: A private individual reported being advised by the CLL Airport Manager that he should cease flying his drone below 400 FT within 2.6 miles of the airport.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Partial engine power loss. Declared [an] emergency [and] diverted. Regained power in descent only to lose power over airfield. Landed on runway without incident. Cleared runway. No damage to airframe. No injuries.




Synopsis: C172 pilot experiences a power loss at 4;500 FT and diverts to a suitable airport. During descent power is regained then lost again over the field. No damage or injuries are reported.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were just leveling off at cruise FL340. We received an emergency call from the lead FA (Flight Attendant). The call was to inform us that a child was having seizures unconscious and seemed to not be breathing. I told the FA to ask for a doctor as I needed to talk to ATC. I called center and [advised them of the medical issue]. Dispatch was made aware that I had [advised ATC] and was diverting for what seemed to be a life and death situation based on current medical information. We as safely as possible got the aircraft prepared and ready and on the ground from cruise within 20 minutes. Dispatch had talked with OPS and I called OPS as well to verify a gate and that it would be ready with medics and ground crew. We landed and received priority progressive taxi instructions to the gate. When we pulled up to the gate the emergency medical team was waiting on the jet bridge. However no ramp agent was available to park us. My last bit of given knowledge was that the child was unconscious and struggling to breathe. My priority was to get the child to medical attention as safely and quickly as possible. With that knowledge I exercised my PIC emergency authority and chose to park the aircraft without ramp guidance. I asked my FO (First Officer) to verify the clearance of the right wing as I did the same for the left. I taxied in and got the aircraft parked safely at that point the ramp crew came running out. I waited until chocks in signal was given before I dropped the main door. So the report is telling you I parked without ground wing walkers based on my choice of need to get to the gate. This was done after the FO and I verified we were clear of all obstructions.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported taxiing into a gate without wing walkers or a marshaller due to a medical emergency.