elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
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: Cleared for approach to [JFK] RWY 4L; maintain 2000 until established. ILS signal was verified. LOC/GS engaged; as LOC began to come in but not yet captured; GS engaged and started down; LOC then captured. At that time we noticed a yellow line thru the GS and PNF queried ATC as to GS function. Aircraft continued to descend on autopilot and ATC informed us GS was functioning normally and minimum altitude was 1500 in this area; we were at 1200. We turned off the autopilot and climbed back to 1500. We were still just outside the final approach fix; reset LOC/GS and reengaged autopilot with good signals. The rest of the approach to landing was uneventful.


Second narrative: Just prior to intercepting the localizer for the ILS 4L into JFK; the crew was cleared for the approach while level at 2000 feet MSL. The PM armed the approach mode for the ILS and the glideslope appeared to be captured. Once on the course; the PM noticed there was no GS information and queried Approach Control as to whether the GS/Localizer was online. Approach Control stated that the crew was below the glideslope. PF immediately disengaged the autopilot/automation and climbed from approximately 1200 feet MSL to 1500 feet MSL; then leveled off prior to the Final Approach Fix. The aircraft captured the glideslope and at this time; Approach Control stated we were on glideslope and to contact Tower. From this point on the approach was executed without any further incident.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported descending 300 ft below the glideslope on approach to JFK.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: No working headset at gate. Common in PHL. Usually I insist that they get one. Thought that I would be charitable today. Big mistake on my part. There is a procedure for pushing without a headset that's NEVER followed by the ground guys. At any rate; ground guy signaled to release brakes. I did to get an out time but nothing else.  Next thing that we know is that we're pushing.  No clearance; no nothing. I try flashing my nose light to no avail.  Get on the radio to broadcast that we're under an uncontrolled push and I can't communicate with our push crew. Ramp control doesn't seem surprised.The only thing that I can do is be a hard-[profanity] and insist that they find a working headset; as these guys have no clue what our procedures; hand signals; etc.; are. If that creates a large delay; so be it.  This won't happen again; at least to me.




Synopsis: A330 flight crew reported inability to communicate with ground crew during pushback; resulting in a pushback without a clearance.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0001-0600
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: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Performed the pre-flight checklist and noticed no issues or concerns with the airplane. This was followed by startup procedures; and then receiving taxi clearance via ZZZ Ground. There was no issues during taxi and plane performed as usual. I finished the checklist in the run-up area; again with no noticeable concerns. I then taxied to Runway XX; requested and received clearance for takeoff on Runway XX. I checked the windsock before applying power and noticed calm winds. I added full power and proceeded down the runway with [no] issues. Right before rolling out at approximately 50 knots and adding back pressure the plane took a sharp turn to the left (approximately 30 degrees). The plane left the runway into the grass striking a runway light with the gear strut. Once the airplane was in the grass and control was gained power was quickly reduce to idle and brakes were slowly applied to come to a stop. I notified Tower immediately when stopped and telling them I had gone off the runway into the field. I was instructed to wait until Operations came out to meet me. I turned off the engine and was met by Operations and the plane was taken back to maintenance facility for inspection.




Synopsis: C172 single pilot reported loss of directional control during takeoff roll resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A Beech 1900 departed ANI on an IFR flight plan to ANC assigned altitude of FL210. All appeared normal. The aircraft data block showed the aircraft climbing and displayed a normal speed yet the data block did not move off of ANI. The aircraft traveled over one hundred thirty miles and was approximately 30 miles Northeast of SQA before there was any indication of a target on the RADAR display. Sector 5 had a strip and a flight plan but was waiting for a RADAR handoff from Sector 13. The Beech 1900 was level at FL210 and should have been tracked on RADAR.  The MEARTS software has a problem that prevented even a limited data block from being displayed at the actual location of the aircraft. This was unexpected and allowed the aircraft to enter Sector 5 for nearly 35 miles without being detected. There was no traffic at FL210 in that area of Sector 5. Do not allow the MEARTS software to block the raw RADAR data from being displayed. An indication of a Mode C intruder or limited data block is better than thinking you have good RADAR coverage and having a blocked target.




Synopsis: ZAN Controller described an unsafe equipment issued noting due to the MEARTS software an aircraft traversed a sector for about 35 miles without being detected.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
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 As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing out of 8;000 to 10;000 FT and while on the departure the amber 'CABIN CAS' message came on. We continued the climb to our cleared altitude of 15;000 FT where I followed the QRH procedures for the door message. There appeared to be no other indications at that time. We were then cleared to a higher altitude and we did so. Shortly after that we noticed the cabin pressure started rising. Due to radio congestion we could not advise ATC. We slowed the climb until I could request a lower altitude. ATC cleared us to 15;000 FT and we did so quickly; by this time the red 'CABIN HIGH' message had come on. As we were descending to 15;000 FT I went to manual mode on the Controller and reduced the cabin pressure. Once at 15;000 FT I requested 10;000 FT from ATC and was given it with a heading to fly while we decided the next course of action.Once at 10;000 FT tried to call [company] but the flight phone was out of range. We; the crew; decided that [a nearby large airport] would be the best location to divert to so we did. We got the ATIS; ATC gave us a clearance and [we] landed normally. I did send a message to the company before we landed and they received it.




Synopsis: A G-200 Captain reported loss of cabin pressure in climb. Flight diverted to nearby suitable airport.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I issued Aircraft X a clearance for the ILS approach. As Aircraft X was descending on the EMZOH3 Arrival I observed an unidentified VFR aircraft 12 miles west level at 4000 feet in the flight path of Aircraft X.  I cancelled Aircraft X approach clearances and assigned 5500 feet to pass above the VFR traffic.  The unidentified VFR aircraft proceeded to climb at a quick rate which then caused Aircraft X to respond to an RA to descend.On this sector we are not protected by the Class B which causes numerous VFR aircraft to transition through the finals of the airport.  We can assume at times the path and altitude the unidentified VFR aircraft take; but usually it's difficult to plan on what action to take to avoid these aircraft. An extended Class C or a lower Class B may prove beneficial.




Synopsis: NCT Controller reported assigning an air carrier an altitude to stay above unidentified VFR traffic. The VFR traffic climbed toward the air carrier which responded to a TCAS RA alert.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We [were] cleared to descend via the HAWKZ RNAV STAR landing south. Halfway through the arrival we asked SEA Approach to deviate 10 degrees right for weather. Approach cleared us for deviation 10 degrees right and instructed us to follow the descent path of the arrival. We asked Approach for a specific hard altitude 'hard' altitude because we were no longer on the arrival; since we were deviating off course. Approach would not give us a specific altitude and cleared us to maintain the descent profile of the arrival. At this time multiple airplanes were requesting a similar deviation because of weather near the arrival and therefore the radios were very busy. At no time was the airplane more than a mile or two to the right of course. After deviating for weather the Approach Controller then cleared us direct to the last fix on the arrival and instructed us to maintain the descent profile of the remainder of the arrival (which included 2-3 additional fixes between us and the last fix on the arrival.) We preceded direct to the last fix but also overlaid the remainder of the arrival over our path to maintain awareness of the arrival and the descent profile. We landed in SEA shortly after. Approach was assigning us a bogus clearance. There is no way to maintain the descent path of an arrival if we are not flying on the arrival path. Once we deviated from the HAWKZ arrival; approach should have issued us a specific altitude to maintain and provided us our descent clearance. We as a crew should have refused to descend via the descent profile and required a specific altitude for further descent.




Synopsis: When weather forced a B737NG flight crew to deviate from the HAWKZ RNAV STAR to SEA they were unable to 'descend in compliance with the descent path of the complex procedure as requested by ATC. When they so advised ATC they were given the same clearance.
Date: 201504
Location: CZQX.ARTCC, NF
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center CZQX
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in cruise with the autopilot and seatbelt on the TCAS initiated a RA indicating traffic. There was no TA preceding the event. I scanned the instruments and a target was displayed at our altitude in our immediate vicinity. I tried to acquire the target visually as well. The TCAS issued the aural warning 'Descend! Descend!' and the pilot flying initiated a descent and turned the autopilot off. I initiated a radio call broadcasting our position and actions on frequency 123.45. The TCAS then issued an additional warning of 'Increase descent! Increase descent!' and we descended approximately 500 feet below our assigned altitude at which time it indicated we were clear of the conflict. We returned to our assigned altitude and the pilot flying engaged the autopilot. We contacted Gander Center and explained our actions. They confirmed our altitude and that they showed no traffic in our vicinity at the time. We reviewed the maintenance history showing the TCAS had indicated false RA reports as early as the same day of our departure. I contacted Dispatch and Maintenance and wrote it up. I suggested we switch from the left transponder to the right and Maintenance agreed. We fully briefed the Captain and flying First Officer when they returned from break. The flight was completed without further occurrence or incident.




Synopsis: At cruise altitude; B-777 TCAS issued a RA and; as a result; the flight crew deviated from assigned altitude by 500 ft. TCAS issued a verbal 'Clear of conflict' and the crew returned the aircraft to assigned altitude and notified Center of the deviation. Neither ATC nor the crew observed traffic in the area. Review of the aircraft maintenance history revealed an earlier-reported false RA.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Other airborne
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While established in a hover in Class G airspace and within what I believed to be the prescribed altitude limitations under FAR 107.51(b) and AC 91-57B; a formation flight consisting of several fixed-winged aircraft approached at a high velocity. No TFR existed at the time of the incident; and I believe that I was in compliance with all FARs. The approaching aircraft were lower and closer than expected in relation to my drone. Nevertheless; my aircraft did not pass over; under; or ahead of the approaching aircraft; and I believe that I was 'well clear'. However; due to my concentration on VLOS (Visual Line of Sight); the flight of the drone may have exceeded 400 ft. AGL.Irrespective of the legality of the operation of the drone; the low altitude of the formation; combined with the high speed of the traffic; surprised me and left few options to avoid a collision should such a maneuver had been necessary. In retrospect; although I believed that I was in compliance with the FARs; the operations resulted in less than desirable separation from the fixed-winged aircraft.Another flight was undertaken the following day without any reduced separation; but it is possible that the 400 ft. altitude limitation was exceeded.


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


Synopsis: UAV pilot reported possible violation of maximum altitude regarding FAR Part 107.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a circling night approach from runway 26L to runway 15R. Pilot flying did not line up properly with the runway resulting in a go around. Towers were noted off the nose of the aircraft at which time I commanded 'pull up' pull up; pull up hard!' The tower controller gave us the choice of coming back around for a visual to runway 33L.  The subsequent landing was performed uneventfully.


Second narrative: Night visual to runway 26L. ATC asked if we would like a visual approach to runway 15L. As pilot flying I told first officer yes. Flew north of runway 26R and thought I had the approach end of runway 15R in sight. Had first officer tune ILS runway 15R and set OBS to 149 course. Had proper indications and used glide path for reference. Runway lights appeared to be on low setting and I realized I didn't have runway in sight after all. At approximately 400 feet first officer said go around and climb was initiated by me. Runway lights were now turned to high setting and I entered a left downwind for landing on runway 33L as offered by the tower. I shouldn't have accepted a circling approach clearance at night when the best option was a straight in visual approach with full ILS guidance. I will never again accept a night time circling approach when a straight in approach is available.


Synopsis: G550 flight crew describes a night circling approach that is allowed to get very low before realizing that the intended runway is not in sight. Towers are noted by the First Officer off the nose of the aircraft as he calls for a; 'Pull up; pull up hard.'
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Gusty Wind
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After joining the localizer and being cleared for the ILS the Captain called for Flaps 9. When selected; the caution message 'FLAP FAIL' appeared on the EICAS. I told the Approach Controller that we needed to break off the approach and be vectored in a box pattern while we ran the checklist. I read the QRH procedure for flap failure while the Captain flew the aircraft. Per the QRH we adjusted our approach speeds as necessary; verified that we had enough runway to safely land the aircraft; and pulled the GPWS circuit breaker. After completing the checklist we notified the flight attendant of the issue and briefed her on our arrival. We then declared an emergency with the approach controller and were vectored back onto the ILS. The landing and rollout were normal and we taxied to the gate without further issue.Threat: One flap channel had failed before takeoff and was on MEL. Threat: gusty winds at [destination].




Synopsis: EMB-145XR First Officer reported receiving 'FLAP FAIL' EICAS caution message on approach.