elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 0
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was trying to stay visual to avoid storms; thus low flight altitude. Knew I might have to get IFR clearance if ceilings got too low. When that did occur and I started getting in clouds; was just about to do 180 turn & get clearance when I got a terrain warning on the GNS430. That made me pause; thinking about terrain. Just as I was initiating turn; I got an obstacle alert. That stopped me from turning. Those two combined warnings made me decide to not risk turning into something; so I pitched up and called Control and got IFR clearance. I fly IFR/IMC often; first time I've gotten caught by dropping ceiling.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported flying into IMC after receiving a terrain warning.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Night landing. Conditions were clear and a million! I accepted a visual approach from ATC. I was not rushed or trying to cut corners. I was simply flying a fairly close in right base to final approach. We received 'caution obstacle' and I simply adjusted my sink rate (was not below glidepath) and continued to a normal landing. Taxiing in; I said; 'I think we were supposed to have gone around!' Sure enough we looked it up and there it was. I really should have known better; no excuse. I guess since it's been a while since I reviewed that section and the oral alert is passive in nature; I did not feel we were in a bad position; when in fact we were! We debriefed each other and we both wished we would have gone around. My memory should have had me react properly without hesitation.


Second narrative: I was the PM (Pilot Monitoring). While on a right downwind we were cleared for a visual approach. The altitude for the final approach fix was set and we began configuring for landing. It was night and the visibility was exceptional. We joined the final approach course at the final approach fix and as we continued our descent we received a GPWS caution. The PF (Pilot Flying) immediately raised the nose slightly; we continued and landed. The entire sequence was over in seconds. Afterwards we discussed that we should have gone around due to the GPWS caution and it was night. I am very familiar with the buildings near the final when landing north. I believe complacency was the largest risk factor in this event. Regardless of how familiar one is with a particular procedure; always be diligent and prepared to see something go differently than the norm.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported receiving a GPWS caution and continuing the approach to landing; contrary to company policy.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E D01
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working the southwest arrival gate the weather was moving eastbound and we were already one route over LARKS. The aircraft wanted to deviate further east into DR4's airspace. I told the [Front Line Manager]; who was working as the TM [Traffic Management Coordinator] at the time; that we needed to shut down my gate. When he asked why; I told him the aircraft were deviating into DR4's airspace. He said he would coordinate for airspace to SOLAR (inside DR4's airspace). I told him that our ATM [Air Traffic Manager] just put out a memo that stated that working aircraft outside your airspace was unsafe and is even worse when it is a non-standard operation. He told me that that coordination is standard and told me I would have to work it like that. I told him that I didn't want to run that operation; but if he was ordering me to then we need to stop ZOMBI arrivals into APA. He never responded to me and walked away. Next thing I know I had aircraft deviating into DR4's airspace while the last coordination with ZDV was over LARKS at 170. I had to guess what every aircraft was doing when they came over to me and I had at least two aircraft out of about 20 that were well above 17;000 feet. And there was still a ZOMBI that came in that was handed off to DR4 that I never received a point out on and was a limited data block on my scope. This has been a problem for years and happens all the time and is still a dangerous procedure. So much so that our own ATM recognizes that we work outside of the SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] so much and put out a memo that we shouldn't be doing it. And while controllers like myself that try to comply with the SOP; best practice; and orders by the highest level of management in the facility; we are meet by opposition from the lowest level of management as well as other controllers and TMC's. There need to be a directive to this facility that we will not 'borrow' other controller's airspace for extended periods of time. If we can't get the aircraft there with a simple point out then it shouldn't be done.




Synopsis: Denver TRACON Controller reported airspace issues relating to weather and improper procedure.
Date: 202003
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My concern follows the global pandemic that is currently at hand (Coronavirus) and the current cleaning processes that are taking place at the Operations Center that affects our health.1) X floor has had no disinfectant wipes now for two consecutive midnight shifts.2) Only one hand sanitizer has been placed on X floor near the elevators; none anywhere else once you enter the doors.3) During midnight shifts on [date] and [date] I have seen the same building attendant use a rag on a stick to dust and clean all monitors; desks areas; and even the floors...without ever changing the rag. This cannot be sanitary or help impede the spread of the infectious virus.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported a lack of personal protection equipment and improper cleaning and sanitizing of the dispatchers' office.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: ZZZ was preparing for multiple taxiways being closed and aircraft back-taxiing to [Runway] X despite NOTAM prohibiting. Runway X was in use. It was the preferred calm wind runway and all aircraft were departing and landing 04. Taxi to X from the hangars requires crossing the approach end of [Runway] YY. I stopped at the hold-short line for YY; announced my intention to cross the runway; [and] turned on my strobes and checked for landing traffic in both directions. Not seeing any; I started to cross the runway and looked to my right; there was an aircraft on a takeoff roll on [Runway] Z. He did not announce he was taking off and did not have strobes or a landing light on. There was never any real chance of collision unless he aborted the takeoff and was going to run off the end of the runway; as the approach end of YY is at the very end of the runway.Several factors contributed to this chain of events. First; I scanned for landing traffic and did not consider an airplane taking off of Z as that runway is never used for takeoff. I've been at that airport for many years and never seen an aircraft take off on Z. Second; the pilot for some reason decided to use Z when all other aircraft and there were multiple aircraft flying; between coming and going for the airshow and high density of training on the field; were using X. Third; the pilot failed to broadcast he was departing Z; which he should have done multiple times just because all other aircraft were using X.I realize that a pilot is free to use any runway he chooses at an uncontrolled airport; but in this case with high density traffic and the favored runway being X; it was a poor choice. It does not excuse my failure to look both for landing and departing traffic. Perhaps the FAA should consider a rule change whereby airport management can actually designate an active runway at the field for given weather conditions.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported that while taxiing across the runway at a non-towered airport; an aircraft that did not communicate their intentions it was taking off using a different runway at the same time.
Date: 201906
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arriving on the FRENCH3 arrival we were assigned Runway 34R. The FMC was programmed in anticipation of being assigned RNAV RNP Z 34R. We asked ATC if we should expect the RNAV arrival and were told possibly. Somewhere around ARCHY we were told it would be a visual arrival. The FO went into the FMC to renter the FRENCH3 arrival without the RNAV transition in order to extend the full arrival out. In reprogramming the FMC he made an entry error which I did not catch prior to execution which caused a loss of lateral path. The FO began correcting the FMC; I placed the MCP in heading select as we turned at BABAA; but did not add enough wind correction and we drifted wide east of course. The FMC was reprogrammed and course correction was made by HIMOM.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported a track deviation occurred on the RNAV RNP Z 34R arrival into DEN; following an error in programming the FMC.
Date: 202003
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Takeoff clearance issued while preceding aircraft still on runway. A group of concerned company pilots have discussed ZZZ ATC as well as other airport controllers issuing takeoff clearances to aircraft while preceding aircraft is still on ground during takeoff roll.  This discussion has come to the attention of ZZZ local safety committee.  This report is being filed to bring attention to the matter and voice our concern.  We hope that this practice will stop before loss of life occurs. It is our request that this concern be shared with other Safety Groups; (FAA; ATC; other airlines) in an attempt to stop tragedy before it occurs.  As our airspace becomes busier and more congested; practices such as this need to be stopped. Respectfully; concerned company pilots.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a re-occurring issue of multiple ATC locations issuing takeoff clearances while preceding departure is still on takeoff roll.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Runways 1L/19R and 1R/19L recently reopened at SFO about a month ahead of schedule.  The work to install EMAS for these runways also included taxiway changes.  However; those changes have NOT been reflected on the SFO 10-9 (and similar) pages.  We were cleared to taxi to runway 1L via A and A1.  However; A1 now turns north between 1L and 1R which is significantly different so as to cause confusion when compared to the current - but erroneous - SFO 10-9 page.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports that the work to install EMAS for Runways 1L and 1r also included taxiway changes. The work was completed one month early and the airport diagram does not reflect these taxiway changes.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Brasilia EMB-120 All Series
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff; 400-500 feet; the duct leak annunciator illuminated and aural warning sounded for the left engine. We acknowledged and proceeded in our climb and leveled off at a safe altitude. During the climb the annunciator illuminated and extinguished continuously. We advised ATC that we needed to level off and work out an issue. I called for the duct leak QRH checklist and after completing the QRH the next step was for a precautionary engine shutdown. We requested vectors back to the airport and [advised] ATC [of the situation] and notified them of performing an engine shutdown. After shutting the left engine down the duct leak annunciator extinguished permanently. After completing the appropriate checklists we advised ATC that we are ready for landing; we accomplished the one engine inoperative QRH and proceeded for the visual [and] backed up with the ILS. Upon exiting the runway; we came to a stop and the Fire Department made a walk around and advised no visible damage or danger was seen. We advised them that no further assistance was needed and got approval from dispatch for a single engine taxi back to the hangar.




Synopsis: EMB-120ER Captain reported left engine duct leak issue shortly after takeoff. The engine was shut down and the flight returned to departure airport.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot in command no passengers 7NM South of ZZZ on a pleasure flight. I took off ZZZ; stayed in pattern for two touch and go's; then I left area going south climbing to 10;000 ft msl. Just north of the airport; monitoring fuel gauge Left tank 1/8- RT ¼ Engine stalled. Went through Restart procedure - No help. Set up best glide took landing ZZZ. Made Radio Call to ZZZ midfield advised condition. Received communication from Helicopter in area advise of wind. Made landing on Runway 26; 260 [degrees]; 14 mph crosswind. Airplane recently bought; owned for about 1 month. Never had low tank levels before; gauges not accurate. A proper preflight inspection was done check fuel level with stick before flight showed ½ tank; 8 L side/ 8 R sideDuring flight practiced maneuvers S turns; slow flight; circle over fixed object; power off stall/power on stall. Was about to start return flight when power stopped. Set up best glide made radio call to ZZZ; made landing. Refueled tied down plane. Received ground instruction from other pilots.Corrective education. I have now installed a digital clock and will wear a wrist watch; timing fuel burn for 8 gal per hour. And I am planning to have gauges check and fixed by Aircraft mechanic.




Synopsis: Private Pilot experiences engine failure after 2 hours of flight with the fuel gauges showing 1/8 on the left and 1/4 on the right. The engine cannot be restarted but the reporter is able glide to the departure airport. The reporter had recently purchased the aircraft and had departed with 8 gallons in each wing as measured with a dipstick; but was not aware of the fuel consumption rate.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were just inside a two mile final for RWY 24R at LAX and had been cleared to land; when the local controller reported a windshear alert of a 35 knot loss on a two mile final; which again; was right where we were or slightly behind us. Nothing in the cockpit indicated any windshear (no airspeed; glide slope or pitch variations or unusual power settings and the wind indications were within a few knots of the reported wind on the ground and similar direction). The co-pilot; who was PF; added 10 knots to approach speed and we discussed going around and as I was about to ask the controller to confirm the wind speed loss he issued a second windshear alert of 35 knots this time also right behind us at 500 feet. We were now at about 300 feet and had experienced nothing other than the usual 5 knot variations due to thermal and orographic shifting on short final to 24R. There was no precip in the area; no virga and we had watched the aircraft in front of us land and he reported no windshear. We went ahead and landed based on our cockpit indications and the lack of report from the aircraft in front of us. After we landed; the windshear alerts stopped and the 737 which landed behind us also reported no windshear. I reviewed the Windshear section of the AFM later in the day and saw that we should have gone around; based on the amount of windshear reported by the TDWR (Terminal Doppler Weather Radar); even though the reports did not reflect the actual conditions we experienced at those points and our cockpit indications did not suggest windshear. This is not the first time I've received TDWR windshear reports right at our location or slightly behind us 'out of the blue' when flying a 757; but it was the first time I'd ever received at 35 knot report. Based on my previous experiences and this one; I believe that TDWR may be detecting 757 wake turbulence under certain conditions and reporting it as windshear. And next time; regardless of cockpit indications; suspected spurious report or not; I'll go around.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported he failed to follow company SOPs when he received a windshear warning on final at LAX and did not execute a go-around.