elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to Level off at FL 340 both blue engine fuel valve closed lights indication lights illuminated bright blue; ENGINE 1 & 2 High Pressure Shut Off Valve CB's popped. Engine all normal indication; used ARINC conferenced With Dispatch; Technical Support Maintenance Control; [and] Chief Pilot. Notified ATC [and] landed in ZZZ.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported multiple engine fuel and bleed air anomaly indications just prior to leveling off at cruise altitude.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X on a vector for a RNAV 33 approach on the outside vector for the crosswind to downwind entered the obstruction ring for 2500 at 2000 ft. I was also dealing with a heavy aircraft and trying to fix the flight plan and steering clear of an active MOA while also vectoring additional aircraft for their approaches. I should have turned Aircraft X sooner and then commenced with dealing with other facilities on the landlines.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported aircraft was vectored into a higher MVA.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SSI.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF SSI
Second aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The [student pilot] was beginning a soft-field takeoff on runway 4 at SSI when she observed the Diamond Twin-star in the flare for landing runway 22 at the 1000 foot marker. I took the controls and was able to slow the airplane and exit the runway to avoid a collision. I followed the Twin-star to the ramp to talk with the pilot about what had just occurred. He was a [local pilot] and admitted he had been on the wrong CTAF frequency.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported taking control on the takeoff roll and exiting the runway to avoid a collision with landing traffic coming from the opposite direction at the non-towered SSI airport.
Date: 201904
Location: PSP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON PSP; Tower PSP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During night VMC conditions; we were assigned to fly the VOR GPS B approach to 31L at PSP. This approach; we were told; was the only authorized approach into PSP due to a radar outage. We requested the RNAV Y (RNP) and were told 'unable' by ATC. This VOR approach that was flown had many threats embedded in it. This being the first time having flown this approach; I was unaware of its complexities. First; the approach makes you remain over 700 feet high on the 3 to 1 glide path at the final approach fix. We recognized this and configured early. The approach is also offset which places the aircraft in a trajectory toward rapidly rising terrain and a necessary descent rate of 1;900-1;500 FPM just to 'capture' the VASI. The outcome of the approach was successful without any GPWS alerts and we achieved stabilized approach criteria just in time to meet our 500 feet gate. It was a 'scramble' to achieve and certainly had many distractions such as trying to capture the glide path from above; rapid descent toward terrain and realigning with the runway. It seems to me that no CAT C or D aircraft should attempt this approach as you begin at the final approach fix way behind the stabilized approach criteria gate; I.E.; not in landing configuration and on glide path. Again; it leaves you 700 feet too high.On the ground; we queried ATC why we could not have flown either the RNAV visual or RNAV RNP and he stated it is the Local Control Tower policy to only allow VOR GPS B approaches to be flown during radar outages. There are no other restrictions on flying the RNAV's except 'local policy.'In the future; I would strongly urge [Company] to restrict our aircraft from flying the VOR GPS B as having seen it first hand; it is an approach with too many threats and a set up for failure (being forced to remain 700 feet high at final approach fix). I would not feel comfortable accepting this approach again.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported the VOR OR GPS-B approach to PSP increases the flight crew's workload and has the potential of creating an unstable approach for this category aircraft.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 MAX Series Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I'm writing to address a concern that there is an issue with the B737 MAX. Since it has returned to service; after the global grounding; I have flown it at least 13 times. I previously addressed this concern with an aviation group; but my dialogue with them came to no resolution; and it appeared there wasn't much concern.The matter I want to clarify is performing the ILS test on the First Officer side. Outside of one time on Date 1; it has never functioned correctly (12 failures). It fails each time you perform the test. It functions properly on the Captain side; but not on the First Officer side. I inform the Captain of the failure and explain the Guidance Maintenance Control will probably take; which is to pull X circuit breaker; then run the test again. Many Captains are reluctant to make an entry into the Maintenance logbook. I attempt to explain that unless we write up the discrepancy; it will continue to be ignored. After nearly a year and no guidance from Flight Operations; I'm guessing it will continue to be ignored. I am not sure how to escalate the issue rather than filing a report and hoping the aviation group will explore the matter in greater detail. Please reach out to me if you have addition questions.




Synopsis: B737 MAX pilot reported the ILS test on the First Officer side fails repeatedly. Reporter stated the problem exists and no one has been able to answer him as to why it fails.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ABE.Tower, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ABE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing ABE as per tower instructions and Company SOPs; a TCAS RA was triggered at approximately 800 ft. AGL during initial climb out. Flaps had not yet been retracted (20 degrees) and autopilot had not yet been selected on. The TCAS RA was followed; as well as a late vectoring from ABE Tower. The TCAS RA's required descent triggered a 'Don't Sink' aural from the aircraft GPWS.TCAS TA was triggered at approximately 500 ft. AGL as well as pilot monitoring identifying the aircraft in sight. Tower simultaneously vectored [us] to heading 280; and general aviation aircraft to turn away. TCAS RA was triggered during the turn and the TCAS RA was followed until the situation was resolved. ABE Control Tower cleared [us] for departure; runway heading; up to 3;000 ft. (I believe). At the same time; ABE Approach vectored a general aviation light aircraft directly into [our] initial climb out path. Tower and Approach failed to communicate to one another the instructions given and caused two aircraft to be vectored onto a collision course.An immediate turn to heading 280 was initiated; however; during the turn the TCAS RA was triggered indicating the need for a 3;000 ft./min descent. The resolution was resolved before a full 3;000 ft./min descent was achieved. A GPWS 'Don't Sink' aural was triggered during the TCAS RA's required action. This event occurred at 800 ft. AGL. No limitations were broken during the TCAS RA maneuver. The previously instructed heading; climb; and initial climb SOP procedures were followed after the resolution.Due to lack of internal ATC communication between approach and tower; [we were] accidentally cleared for departure into another aircraft. The TCAS RA which occurred during the initial climb-out at 800 ft. suggested that [we] descend at 3;000 ft./min. Luckily the RA was resolved before 3;000 ft./min was achieved; and autopilot had not yet been activated (increasing reaction time from pilot flying). The rate of descent the TCAS required triggered a 'Don't Sink' call from the GPWS; leading me to believe that the resolution of one situation could have caused the creation of another.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported that a TCAS RA commanded a descent shortly after departure that caused a GPWS 'Don't sink' alert.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Other VFR Traffic Pattern
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Aerobatic
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Handoff / Assist
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Local Control 2 which controls Runway XXL and Ground Control coordinated via the land line behind short final cross Runway XXL at intersection Delta and it was approved. I was watching Diamond Star on short final at the same time [another aircraft] crossed the hold bars Diamond Star advised that he was going around. The go around was conducted before the aircraft reached the landing threshold.


Second narrative: I was working the Assistant Local Position monitoring LC1. Ground Control had coordinated a runway crossing at Taxiway Delta with Local 2 and Local 1. I had just received an IFR release from TRACON and was off monitor for a few seconds and then returned to listening to Local 1. Local 2 shouted out something about going around traffic was crossing. When I looked at the situation Diamond Star was starting a Climbing GO Around on Runway XXL and [another aircraft] was stopped about half way between the runway edge and the Hold Short lines. Recommendation; I do not believe we need to make any changes in procedure. The inexperienced Ground Controller should have said what he originally intended too.


Synopsis: Tower Controller described a go around event when coordination between a Local Controller and Ground Controller was confused and Ground Controller cleared an aircraft to cross a runway with traffic on short final.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ESN.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Military
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ESN
ATC / advisory: Tower ESN
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: First Officer; Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While executing the ILS 04 into ESN on Date at approximately XA:30; our crew witnessed a small drone pass over the helicopter (50 ft. above helicopter). Our helicopter was within 2 miles from the field at approximately 450 ft. when the drone passed 50 ft. over the helicopter. The drone was approximately 2-3 ft. wide and white/silver. It appeared to have 2 rotors; but may been a fixed-wing type. The drone was reported to ESN tower who notified all aircraft on the ILS 04 and operating at the airfield. The drone was not seen again.




Synopsis: Helicopter flight crew had a near miss with a UAS while on an ILS approach and notified ATC.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On a vector for approach to Runway 23; both Runway 23 and B757 traffic 3nm ahead in sight; CLT Approach Control cleared us for the Visual Approach Runway 23. Upon intercepting the final approach course; we encountered wake turbulence from the preceding B757; which contributed to us going through the final approach course. As we turned back to re-intercept the final approach course; re-encountered wake turbulence which then contributed to us going through the final approach course again. CLT Approach Control intervened and vectored us off the approach to re-enter to an uneventful approach and landing on Runway 23. I suspect the event occurred because we were within the range of the B757 wake. I suggest further separation from traffic ahead.


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


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported two track deviations from cleared course when wake turbulence from a preceding B757 was encountered during approach to CLT.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While in the descent/arrival phase of flight; we were cleared direct to a fix and to descend and maintain 7000 ft. At this time Center also handed us off to the next Center.  In compliance with the clearance; we proceeded direct to the fix and descended to 7000 ft. The hand-off to the next Center was successful and the Captain was able to establish communication.  However; as we were approaching the fix; with no further clearance; the Captain attempted to query the new Center 2-3 times for further instructions.  With no response; as we passed the fix at 7000 ft.; I initiated a right procedure turn (northwest) and initiated a descent to 2500 ft.  As we completed the procedure turn; the Captain was able to re-establish communication.  The Center Controller expressed concern about the fact that we had proceeded past the fix and descended below 7000 ft without further clearance.  However; he did not ask for follow-up communication via landline.  The Center Controller cleared us to continue the RNAV (GPS) approach.  We landed without incident and cancelled our flight plan once we were on the ground.Once we determined we were not in contact with Center; we had no way of knowing when or if we would be able to re-establish communication with them and we had a limited amount of fuel left.  Additionally; TCAS displayed no other aircraft operating in the area. Based on these circumstances; the Captain and I decided to fly the published RNAV (GPS) approach procedure and proceed to the airport.


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


Synopsis: An Air Carrier flight crew lost communication with ATC in the final phase of flight and during approach. Communication was regained prior to landing.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Golden Eagle 421
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While at the Sector; I was receiving numerous icing reports.  Aircraft X departed northbound; requesting 18;000 FT.  Eighteen thousand feet was not usable due to low altimeters; so I asked the pilot if he wanted 16;000 FT or 20;000 FT.  He chose 16;000 FT. The aircraft turned around in the adjacent airspace due to severe icing and was handed back to me at 13;000 FT; my control.  I descended him to 11;300 FT; my lowest MIA; but he could not maintain altitude due to icing. I asked him if he had the terrain in site; and he said no. He was IMC. I informed my supervisor that I had an emergency situation.  I kept the pilot updated on the MIA and when he would be able to get lower.  At one point he was 1;500 FT below my MIA.  I advised him that we have a 2;000 FT buffer in mountainous terrain so he could be as close as 500 FT to an obstacle.  I issued a heading for him to fly to get to lower terrain sooner.  I then asked my supervisor to pull up a terrain chart so I could estimate his proximity to the closest obstacle.  I informed him that he was south of the highest obstacle that we depicted on the chart and kept assigning the lowest altitudes possible.  He was able to get his departure airport in sight about six miles out. He chose to do a visual approach.




Synopsis: An Enroute Controller reported that an IFR aircraft was below MIA and unable to hold altitude in an emergency situation due to icing.