elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Second aircraft: B757-200
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local Control at SNA; Runways 19L and 19R were in use. SoCal TRACON was running visual approaches to Runway 19R. The Controller working the Tustin Sector at SoCal called over the land line and said that a B737-700 was requesting to land on Runway 01L (opposite direction). I had no tower traffic so I allowed it; this is a fairly common practice when it is not busy at night.  The B737-700 was switched to my frequency; having been cleared for the Runway 01L approach and about 7 miles South of the airport; at the same time a B757-200 was on about a 3 mile final to Runway 19R. The same Controller was working both of these aircraft to sequence them for the approach.  If the B757-200 had to execute a missed approach for any reason it would have put him directly in the flight path of the inbound B737-700. Additionally; when the B737-700 was about 3 miles from landing; I noticed another B757-200 being turned on the to Runway 19R approach by the Tustin Controller. I called the Controller over the interphone and he then broke the second B757-200 off of the approach. In light of the numerous procedures required for opposite direction departures; I believe there should be some clearly spelled out procedures for opposite direction approaches. However it appears that there are none in place.  When we request an opposite direction departure; the supervisor must make the request with SoCal; but when they want to run an opposite direction arrival; they just call over the line and ask the controller. It also appears that they don't have any spacing requirements with the traffic making an opposite direction and an traffic making a normal approach to the same runway. My recommendation would be that they could not have any aircraft cleared for an approach to a runway when there is an aircraft cleared to make an opposite direction approach to the same runway until they receive a 'landing assured' call from the Tower.




Synopsis: SNA Controller voiced concern regarding the current; but ever changing; 'opposite direction procedures' and interpretation of same by SCT TRACON.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation I (C500)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon departure off Runway 32 at FRG a climb to 2900 feet MSL was conducted for our flight northbound. Upon landing we were advised to call New York TRACON. TRACON advised that they showed us cruising at 3100 feet MSL which would have put our aircraft inside the Class B airspace. At no time did the aircraft climb above 2900 indicated altitude. Altimeters were set and cross checked both before departure from FRG and before arrival at [our destination] with the respective local barometric pressures. On the subsequent flight we asked TRACON for a mode C check while in cruise at 10;500 feet which agreed with our indicated Altitude.




Synopsis: Citation pilot departing from FRG northbound at 2900 feet to avoid the New York Class B airspace is informed after landing that his mode C transponder indicated he was at 3100 feet and inside the Bravo.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; 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: I was flying level at 9500 feet MSL. I am equipped with ADS-B in and out and was observing traffic including a Cirrus that was pointed out to me by Los Angeles Center. While keeping an eye on the Cirrus I caught out of the corner of my eye movement below and ahead of me. I thought it to be another aircraft low then maybe a weather balloon but as it came toward me I realized it was a drone. It was a skeletal built rectangular craft maybe 6 to 8 feet in length with no apparent aerodynamic design. It appeared to have motors affixed similar to hobbyist drones on all four corners but I could not be sure. It passed under my wing and I turned my head to see it pass behind my aircraft and move out of sight. This happened in about 10 seconds and I was surprised to see a drone flying in busy airspace between the Gorman GMN and Van Nuys VNY VORs at 9000 feet. There was no traffic depicted for this drone but all other traffic in the vicinity was clearly shown on my MFD (Multifunction Flight Display).  This was a potentially hazardous and deadly situation and I thought it should be reported.




Synopsis: Baron 55 pilot at 9;500 feet between VNY and GMN VORs reports sighting a quadcopter type drone 500 feet below.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-60 601/601P Aerostar
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I took off and climbed to 25;000 FT. I lost power in my right engine 1 hour into the flight. I secured the right engine and started a descent to 10;000 FT. I attempted to restart the engine at 20;000 FT and 10;000 FT with no luck. I secured the right engine and descended to land. In the heat of handling the engine out emergency; I forgot to lower my landing gear and landed wheels up.




Synopsis: PA60-601P pilot reported loss of right engine at cruise flight; which was distracting enough he landed gear up.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I landed on Runway 14 at SLC International Airport I was instructed to taxi to the end of the runway and hold short of Runway 17. I acknowledged the clearance and continued to roll out to the end of the runway. As I hit the numbers for Runway 32 and saw the boundary line for the runway I commented to my passenger (another pilot) that we needed to hold short of 17 and I was looking for the hold short line. He commented that he believed we had just passed it. I stopped immediately and looked behind my aircraft and could see the hold short line. As I had been cleared to taxi to the end of the runway; I was looking for a hold short line past the end of the runway and had not seen the actual hold short line; which is located on the runway near the runway numbers short of the end of the runway. Prior to the flight I had reviewed the 'Hot Spots' at SLC; and had also discussed them with my passenger; and was aware that Hot Spot #1 is the Hold Short Line for Runway 17/35 at the end of Runway 32. The Hot Spot notice reads 'Hold line on approach end of RWY 32 protects RWY 35.' I believe this is misleading as the hold short line is not at the end of the runway but the notice seems to imply that. If the notice read something to the effect of 'Hold line by the RWY 32 numbers protects RWY 35' I believe it would be more understandable and help further alleviate problems at this Hot Spot.




Synopsis: Bonanza A36 pilot reports crossing the hold line for Runway 17 on Runway 14 after landing and being instructed to hold short.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SJC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Distraction
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: This is filed as a complaint against the new soccer field near SJC.  Specifically the billboard is much too bright at night causing a blinding effect to pilots on taxi out and while at the hold short for takeoff.  Please have it dimmed or turned off at night during field operations. Too much light interference during critical phase of flight.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported the new soccer stadium lights near SJC Runway 30R/L; interfere with night vision while taxiing and holding short for takeoff on that Runway.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X began to push back off Gate XXX heading to ramp drop Spot XX along Taxiline XY. Aircraft Y began its push off Gate XXY going to Ramp Drop Spot XY along Taxiline XY Dashed. Had Aircraft Y continued to push to it's assigned drop spot; it might have struck Aircraft X. The pushback operator of Aircraft Y stopped the aircraft push until after the Aircraft X completed its push; disconnect and taxi out.




Synopsis: Ramp worker reported a near collision between two aircraft being pushed to their assigned spots.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SBGR.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The new Flight Attendant requirement to arrive at the airport is one hour and fifteen minutes prior to departure. Pilot requirement has not changed; and is still one hour. The problem is that in most cases pilots and flight attendants take the same transportation to the airport from the hotel. This raises several issues. One is that FAR 117 rest requirement and on duty times are no longer accurate for pilots. On some occasions; legalities for pilots to continue a sequence come down to the minute; and I don't believe those computations are accurate if the assumed arrival time at the airport is one hour; when management is requiring pilots to be there with the flight attendants an hour and fifteen minutes prior.This is exacerbated by some stations that excessively pad departure times from the hotel. SBGR is a chronic problem. On this flight; we arrived at the airport about 40 minutes prior to required sign-in for pilots. How should FAR 117 be computed in this case? The stated reason for SBGR to excessively pad the pickup time for crewmembers is that on occasion traffic can be bad. In 19 years of flying to SBGR; I've been late to the airport once. And when we arrived at the gate on that particular day; the airplane took another 45 minutes past departure time to arrive at the gate. There is a reasonable standard to be applied; and I don't believe what is happening is either FAR 117 legal; contractually appropriate or justified; and much less reasonable. At a minimum; pilots should not be subject to the contractual requirement of a different employee group.SBGR management and the Company do not comply with FAR 117 requirements. Suggest separate pilot transportation to the airport; and more reasonable pickup times.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported FAR 117 violations due to a change in Company policies.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Other Holding Pattern
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Aircraft X was doing VFR air work in the vicinity of MOL VOR at FL145.  He was maneuvering in the area of Aircraft Y who was climbing out of FL140 to FL190 direct LDN.  I attempted to reach Aircraft X a few minutes prior to the event occurring with no response.When it became apparent that the traffic was [now] head on; I gave a 30L turn to Aircraft Y.  After giving that turn Aircraft X reported he was responding to an RA and I saw him descend.  Standard separation was quickly attained by the actions of Aircraft X.Workload and frequency congestion was a factor at the time.  I was working 6 sectors.  The sectors should have been split or a D-side would have been helpful.




Synopsis: ZDC Center Controller reported a loss of separation between two aircraft while working 6 sectors.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff and retracting the gear we noticed an IAS and ALT flag on both PFDs. My FO (First Officer) was the PF (Pilot Flying) and I was the PM (Pilot Monitoring). When I realized both PFDs had flags I tried to determine which PFD was correct by referencing the stand by instruments. During this time I made the decision to have my FO maintain a level altitude and constant power setting as neither PFD was indicating correct information. I told ATC that we were having equipment issues and needed vectors back to the airport. I told my FO to do the best he could to maintain what airspeed we currently had and the same altitude. We maneuvered the aircraft back into a position to land on the longest available runway. I made the decision to make a flaps 20 landing as I had no reliable airspeed indication except my GS readout which was consistent with each query of our speed from ATC. We were able to navigate to the LOC and use the LOC and GS to guide us to the ground. I made an overweight landing at an indicated ground speed of 160 knots at descent rate of less than 100 fpm at touch down. I used full reverse and brakes to slow to a taxi speed but never braked so hard as to engage the anti-skid system. From there we taxied to the gate and deplaned the aircraft. I do not know the cause of this failure. All indications prior to takeoff and indeed from the leg before were that the aircraft was operating normally.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported losing airspeed indication shortly after takeoff and returned to departure airport.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We had] day VMC light winds and a normal stabilized approach and touchdown on the fixed distance markers. During rollout; Tower advised that smoke was coming from right main strut area; cleared runway and Tower advised that smoke had dissipated. Suspected the non-normal light winds as a contributing factor to Tower's observation. Captain continued taxi to gate with CFR vehicles in proximity. CFR personnel kept rampers clear of right main landing gear. Once at the gate; First Officer inspected (from a safe distance) the right main gear and found right rear tire deflated. The pre-flight inspection was normal; approach and landing normal. The tire and wheel assembly appeared normal (except for the obvious deflation) on the post-flight. I'm not really sure what happened to cause this problem.


Second narrative: The wind upon landing was light and the aircraft braking was not significant. Auto brakes 2 were set for landing. Also after we arrived at gate Fire Chief reported no sign of excess heat but right rear main tire appeared low.


Synopsis: B767-300ER flight crew reported failure of a main gear tire after a normal landing with light braking.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RSW.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C RSW
ATC / advisory: Tower RSW
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Departed Runway 6 behind a B757. At 50 ft we experienced wake turbulence. We sidestepped to the upwind side to avoid further wake. Reported the wake to Departure Control.


Second narrative: Tower should be sure to give proper separation for all departures. Seemed like it was an immediate takeoff behind the 757.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported encountering wake turbulence shortly after takeoff in trail of a B757.
Date: 201504
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The new iPad battery life is too short. I left the hotel with the iPad at 100% charge.  All apps were closed. When I got to airport; iPad was showing 95% - I then turned on WiFi to flight plan as the overseas connectivity on cellular mode was hanging up and not useable. By the time I had finished flight planning with the iPad and was heading for the aircraft; it was showing 82%. I used it for cockpit set up and briefings and taxi charts discussion. At pushback it was showing 71% - now in airplane mode. At top of climb I noticed the iPad was now showing 58% - then; buy mid Atlantic it was down to 42% - The only apps open were FM; FOM and Jepp FD Pro.I do not consider the iPad is useable as an alternative to Jeppesen documents. I also urge a return to the cockpit of the FOM; FM and WOM in paper form. I was getting very concerned about losing ability to consult the company publications for reference purposes. This is not a viable alternative to paper pubs. Sadly submitted.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain believes that the iPad battery life is too short for international flying and laments the demise of paper charts and manuals.