elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: N85.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: CTAF N85
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I often fly late-day or evening; and routinely use the associated pilot-controlled airport lighting both to fix my position and for terminal guidance. Sky Manor has MIRL but does not have an airport beacon; so I often also turn on the lighting for Alexandria (N85); located approximately 2NM northwest; which has both MIRL and a rotating beacon. The frequency for this at Sky Manor is 122.975 (which doubles as the CTAF frequency); at Alexandria; 121.8 (with 122.975 as CTAF).On at least two separate occasions; coming from more than one direction; I have turned the airport lighting on for Alexandria and ended up momentarily distracting pilots and/or ATC by doing so. Alexandria is not very far away from Newark Liberty (EWR); or Lancaster (LNS); both of which use 121.8 as a Ground Control frequency and are apparently well within radio range and altitudes at and below 2000 ft MSL. Further research indicates that McGuire (WRI) may also be affected; as it's a similar distance as Newark.While I don't want to keep distracting others in the ATC system - and I've resolved the issue for myself by increasing familiarity with the airspace; which has reduced the necessity of me using the Alexandria airport beacon for guidance - I also realize that this has the capability to reduce my situational awareness; and at any event; aircraft intending to land at Alexandria at night must necessarily turn the airport lighting on; potentially distracting operations at the airports previously listed.I propose that the lighting frequency at Alexandria be changed; either to CTAF or to some other discrete frequency; with the intention of minimizing possible adverse operational implications for local controlled airports.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reports identical frequencies are used at several airports in close proximity.
Date: 201304
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight the fire warning light on the glare shield illuminated for less than two seconds and the fire bell rang intermittently three times. There were no other associated lights on the master caution; center pedestal engine fire warning/overheat; or cargo fire warning panel. Two minutes later the fire warning light on the First Officer's glare shield flickered once for a fraction of a second without any other lights or the fire warning bell. All engine indications were normal. I called Dispatch; Maintenance Control; and the FODO to explain our situation. Maintenance Control said it was most likely a fault in the First Officer's side and we still had full fire warning/overheat detect capability. There are no QRH items for such a scenario and we unanimously concluded it was safe to proceed as along as the fire warning light and or bell did not come on again. We consulted with dispatch to be ready for a possible diversion and checked the weather at suitable airports along our route and made sure that our route keep us close to suitable airport at all times. The flight was completed without further incident. It was far safer to continue on that to land at an unfamiliar airport at night with no braking reports and no ground crew for an false warning indication.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported intermittent false engine fire warning in cruise flight. After consulting with ground personnel the flight continued to destination.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were assigned the SERFR1 STAR into SFO and cleared to 'descend via'; we entered the bottom altitude (4;000 feet) into the FCU and started a VNAV/managed airspeed descent; we complied with all altitude and airspeed restrictions on the STAR. Approaching EPICK the approach controller changed the clearance to 'descend via the SERFR1; except after EPICK descend and maintain 6;000 feet'. We crossed EPICK at 10;000 feet; slowed to 250 KTS; and then pulled for open descent to comply with the clearance. Approaching EDDYY we slowed down to 240 KTS to comply with crossing airspeed and continued to descend through 7;000 feet for 6;000 feet. The approach controller advised we would descent below Class B airspace and would reenter in 4 miles. The floor of the Class B airspace is at 8;000 feet until 3 miles before EDDYY; where it changes to 6;000 feet.When the controller issued the 'descend via; except' clearance; we are required to comply with the STAR speed restrictions (240 KTS at EDDYY). The clearance to descend to 6;000 feet after EPICK is what put the aircraft below the floor of Class B airspace. This puts the speed restriction at EPICK and the speed restriction below Class B airspace in conflict. A more appropriate clearance would be 'descend via the SERFR1; except maintain 6;000 feet. Comply with altitude and airspeed at EDDYY.'The design of the SERFR1 also conflicts with Class B airspeed requirements. If the aircraft is early reaching 6;000 feet; the 240 KTS airspeed at EDDYY will conflict every time.


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


Synopsis: An air carrier crew flying the SFO SERFR ONE RNAV STAR were cleared; prior to EPICK; to 'Descend via the SERFR ONE; except after EPICK descend and maintain 6;000.' That clearance took the aircraft below Class B at 250 knots.
Date: 201912
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: During our pre flight at gate in HNL; I noticed that we were not receiving any GPS or inertial data on the POS INITIAL page and were not able to complete the FMC pre-departure nav accuracy check.  Thinking we may have an interference issue; we called for a mechanic who advised that this particular gate was having issues with the GPS system and that many flights were reporting the same. The mechanic did run a GPS test on the maintenance screen next to the jump seat and all was reported 'normal'. The mechanic advised that once we pushed out to taxiway 'A'; that all would return to normal; which it did.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported unable to receive GPS signal at this location.
Date: 201405
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At approximately 4;000 FT and after skydivers exited the aircraft; I lost engine power and took immediate action by pitching for best glide and attempted my restart procedures. Restart failed. [We] landed [the] aircraft 8 NM southeast of intended airport. Aircraft sustained no damage and pilot was not injured. I believe by forward slipping the aircraft (from 12;000 FT to 4;000 FT); I caused a fuel starvation problem and incorrectly attempted to solve the problem by switching fuel tanks without turning the boost pump on.




Synopsis: C206 jump pilot reports engine failure at 4;000 FT after a sustained forward slip from 12;000 FT. The engine does not restart and an off airport landing ensues; with no damage reported.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 'LAV SMOKE' annunciator and warning.  Determined through Flight Attendant (FA) that a passenger was smoking an E-Cigarette in lavatory.  No actual smoke or danger.  Indication resolved.  Continued on without incident. Had security meet aircraft at gate.Actual non emergency cause only known by chance because FA happened [to] catch passenger still in lavatory and passenger was honest about his actions.Make prohibited E-cigarette use in lavatory more known to the passengers to prevent unnecessary diversion in the future.




Synopsis: An EMBRAER Regional jet First Officer reported receiving a LAV SMOKE message related to a passenger smoking an E-cigarette in the lavatory.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 3
Aircraft: S-76/S-76 Mark II
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our helicopter was departing Teterboro Airport and was 'cleared for the RUUDY 4 departure; climb and maintain 2;000 FT; expect 3;000 FT in ten minutes.' We were cleared by the TEB Tower to takeoff from Kilo Taxiway; abeam the departure end of Runway 19. As our aircraft was not aligned with Runway 24 (the runway which the 'RUUDY 4 SID' services) nor in close proximity to Runway 24; our Flight Management System (FMS) was not giving us useful information as we did not depart from the departure end of Runway 24 but rather from the end of Runway 19. Due to obstructions on the southern part of the airport (hangars; aircraft) we had to depart due south and not on a heading of 240 degrees as prescribed in the RUUDY 4 SID. Once airborne we were able to steer towards a westerly heading to intercept the departure path of the RUUDY 4 SID. As we corrected our course to assume the SID route; our aircraft continued to climb past the initial hold down altitude of 1;500 FT at WENTZ; as our aircraft FMS did a 'smart turn' abeam WENTZ; as we flew towards the next waypoint on the SID; 'TASCA.' if nothing else; our departure path was off due to departing from a close proximity to Runway 19 and not Runway 24. Additionally; our altitude was not exact because we weren't able to fly the initial track as prescribed in the RUUDY 4 SID due to our initial starting point near the departure end of Runway 19.




Synopsis: S76 Captain reports difficulties complying with the RUUDY 4 departure from TEB after being cleared for that departure with a takeoff from near the approach end of Runway 19. The WENTZ crossing restriction may have been exceeded as the aircraft passed abeam.
Date: 202203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was working Local control and had an arrival on about a 1/4 mile final. I scanned down the runway and noticed Aircraft X taxiing on Taxiway J and turning left to continue onto Runway 1. I alerted Ground Control to reach out to Aircraft X and have them turn the aircraft back onto Taxiway J before they went onto the runway. Ground Control keyed up and told Aircraft X to turn right immediately to join Taxiway J. Aircraft X immediately turned and did not cross the hold short line for Runway 1.We have had multiple incidents of aircraft inadvertently taxiing out onto Runway 1/19. We have had multiple meetings with Airport Operations to try and remedy this but Airport Operations complains that most of our suggestions are too expensive and they do not want to or cannot spend the money on the ideas we have.We have suggested that they put runway guard lights (wig wag lights) or yellow lights within the painted hold short lines to indicate that the aircraft is approaching a runway. Because of our limited real estate and smaller taxiways; flight crews are mistaking Runway 1/19 for Taxiway J. This is happening on a very consistent basis. We have had approximately 5 runway incursions or ALMOST incursions over the past few months just like this incident.This is a very serious safety matter at DCA that must be addressed as soon as possible before something catastrophic happens.




Synopsis: DCA Local Controller reported an aircraft nearly taxied onto Runway 1 without clearance while taxiing on Taxiway J before the crew was stopped by Ground Control. Reporter stated flight crews frequently mistake Runway 1 for Taxiway J.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Saab 340 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On final approach we were assigned 2000 while 12-15 miles out from 8L at MIA. We were given 170 airspeed and were informed we would be exiting Bravo until re-entering at 10 miles out. We were informed we were following a B757 at 3000 ft (1000 ft above us). We were cleared for the visual approach to 8L. At approximately 11 miles out we encountered severe wake turbulence that caused us to climb 1000 ft and increase airspeed approximately 10 kts. We were also unable to maintain a heading for approximately 7 seconds. After stabilizing we were cleared to land 8L and proceeded as normal without any other occurrences for the remainder of the flight.




Synopsis: SF34 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on arrival to MIA in trail of a B757 which resulted in altitude and track deviations.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I the Captain was the Pilot Flying using the autopilot while flying on the RNAV Arrival. Center gave us a vector south off of the lateral path and cleared us to descend to an altitude of 24000 feet. After 1 to 2 minutes on this vector; ATC re-cleared us direct to a fix and to descend to an altitude of 13000 feet. We turned direct and initiated the descent on the autopilot. Almost as soon as we began the descent; we received a TA 'Traffic; traffic' followed immediately by an RA 'Climb; climb now; climb; climb now'. As soon as I heard the TA I started looking for the traffic which appeared to be a flight of 2 aircraft on TCAS and then had to immediately respond to the RA by disconnecting the autopilot and auto-throttles and then following the RA Climb guidance. Neither the First Officer nor I saw the traffic. After receiving a 'Clear of conflict' I re-engaged the autopilot and auto-throttles and resumed the previous ATC clearance. We reported the RA to ATC. ATC said that they'd had several RAs recently due to a change in Departure Procedures. The remainder of the flight continued safely and we landed without further incident.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported responding to a TCAS RA for a flight of two military aircraft.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-31T Cheyenne I
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D CYSL
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft on approach performed a missed approach due to UNICOM frequency not activating lights at the field. While attempting another approach I contacted  Flight Service to ask about any NOTAMs or outages at the field. They told me there were no NOTAMs that mentioned lights or runway issues. By this time the aircraft was on another missed approach and decided to divert. I called  Flight Service back to let them know the issue and they informed me that they spoke to the Airport Operator who informed them that the runway was actually CLOSED and there were outages and snow covering the airport. I told the pilot the issue and he said that he was unaware of the airport runway conditions through the NOTAMs he had. If the pilot was able to perform a full approach there could have been more severe consequences due to the runway conditions not being known.More direct access to Canadian airport Notams.




Synopsis: An aircraft attempted two approaches to an airport but could not activate the airport/runway lights via Unicom frequency. The controller found out through the local Flight Service Station and Airport operator that the runway was closed due to snow on the runway and other equipment outages. The pilot stated none of these airport status issues were available to him from the Notams he checked prior to flying. The FSS also did not have this information in their Notams. The airport is in Canadian airspace.