elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure climb; we received ECAM message Engine 1 Oil Filter Clog. We complied with the ECAM instructions and monitored the system. Approximately 30 minutes later; we received ECAM Msg Eng 1 Lo Oil Press. Oil pressure was 80 psi and dropping when we performed the ECAM Action. We shut down engine one in accordance with the procedure. Oil pressure was 50 psi at the time of the shutdown. The engine shut down normally. I [advised] with Center and asked for a turn direct to [a nearby alternate]. I assigned the First Officer flying duties and proceeded to communicate with the crew; passengers; and Company. At the time of the shutdown; we [were] at FL300 and cruising at M.78. There were no indicators such as noise or vibration; but the flight attendants reported loud noises at about the same time as we received the ECAM message. The descent was uneventful and ATC was extremely professional and helpful. We initially received vectors for the ILS but I requested to go [a different] Runway XXC; which is 2;000 feet longer because we were going to have to perform an overweight landing. Approach and landing were uneventful. We touched down with a descent rate of less than 100 fpm and stopped normally. I cleared the runway and was met by ARFF which inspected the engines and brakes at my request. Once released by the ARFF Commander; we taxied to the gate. The passengers deplaned the aircraft normally. The Fire Chief inspected the engine and reported that the site gauge for the oil showed it was full. The oil quantity indicator also showed there was greater than 15 quarts. It appears the issue was a completely clogged oil filter.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported diverting to an alternate airport after an inflight shut down of the #1 engine because of low oil pressure related to a clogged oil filter.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DVT.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DVT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
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: Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The new hold wigwag lights at DVT at the hold lines are so bright at night that they create a significant loss of night vision for flying and increase probability of a loss of a crew and airplane. Please make them find a way to dim the lights to preserve night vision for the aircrew of any airplane. No one seems to be able to dim them at night. They are excellent for daytime illumination.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported lighting at DVT airport is too bright at night and could cause loss of night vision.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JKA.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: CTAF JKA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: In the pattern doing touch and go landings; while on left downwind for Runway 9; a high wing airplane passed beneath me on an easterly heading of approximately 090. I estimate that the vertical separation was approximately 200 FT. The wind was from 110 at about 12 KTS. Runway 9 was the favored runway and was the one in use by local traffic.




Synopsis: A PA28 pilot in the JKA Runway 9 closed pattern at 1;100 FT reported a near miss with a high wing aircraft which passed about 200 FT beneath his aircraft.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Had an engine failure in cruise; secured the engine (shut it down/feathered the prop/cut the fuel); did not divert (I was by myself); changed the destination (longer runways and that's where maintenance is located); didn't declare an emergency - ATC did. Landed - it was easy to see because of all the red lights (this airport has combined military/civilian fire and rescue and they love an emergency); landing was uneventful (darn near perfect). The fire trucks even followed me as I taxied around the terminal to the maintenance facility. In 25 years of flying that was the second 'roll the equipment' landing. I was returning from simulator flight training. I had just spent 2 hours doing single engine work in the simulator that afternoon. Nothing like being current in your training! Right-hand engine driven high pressure fuel pump failed. Replaced; right-hand engine checked good. Inspected left-hand engine high pressure fuel pump; checked good. Inspected left-hand and right-hand Fuel Control Units (FCUs); checked good.




Synopsis: A King Air (BE-9T) high pressure fuel pump failed in cruise so the pilot feathered the engine and diverted to an airport with long runways and emergency equipment.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BWI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pushed back into the alley between pier DX and C for one engine start. Ground Control issued taxi instruction 'Taxi to Runway 10 via Tango'. I had mentally noted that the BWI 10-7A (Nov14) page was incorrect; showing a runway where the new Taxiway Papa now existed; and that the present Taxiway Tango that used to be Papa.  But in my mind it didn't matter because Taxiway Papa was under big time construction. Confirmed with First Officer that Tango was initially the ramp and then split at Taxiway Alpha. I made a right turn incorrectly onto taxiway Alpha and after I was committed I realized that I had turned too early. Were just about to key the mike and tell Ground Control when they called us and told us we were on the wrong taxiway. We acknowledged the error and the controller scolded us and gave us new taxi instructions. We had previously briefed the airport Hotspots HS1 and HS2 on arrival. The plate label locations of the ARP symbol and the HS1 and HS2 made a bad problem worse; especially when Taxiways U2 and Papa were under construction.


Second narrative: We had just finished entering an extensive ATC weather reroute. We finished checklists and called for push back. We started an engine; completed the after start checklist and called for taxi. ATC issued the following clearance. Runway 15R via T hold short of P-1. I copied the clearance and read it back to the Captain. He said (I got it). He started to taxi and I went heads down to amend the release with Dispatch. ATC informed us that we were on taxiway A (Inner Taxiway). With the construction and lack of signage in a big open space; it looked correct. A new clearance was issued. Taxi to 15R via T; E; P. We were now at Hot Spot 1. The new signage is very confusing. We ended up using P-1; P; [and] 15R. I am not sure the renumbering of the taxiways in this area has helped eliminate the confusion. The new signage is VERY confusing. We continued taxiing; got an amended release; started the other engine; completed checklists and were on our way.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew report of being pushed back between pier DX and C reports being cleared to taxi via Taxiway Tango to Runway 10 but turns early onto Taxiway A instead. ATC issues new taxi instructions. Taxiway construction and airport Diagram clutter were cited a contributing factors.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I received an IFR release on Aircraft X; who was departing BUR on the OROSZ 1 SID (right turn heading 210 off Runway 15). After clearing the aircraft for takeoff I shipped the aircraft to SCT. As I did that; I noticed that at the same time my target was acquiring on the scope; a PMD departure was tagging up off VNY Runway 16 (left turn heading 110). The two SIDs conflict with each other and by default SCT will only release one aircraft at a time. However; it was a slow morning and it's not unheard of for SCT to release both at once when they're not busy and manually vector the aircraft off VNY to the west to keep them away from the BUR departure. That is very rare; but I've occasionally seen it and I figured that since it was a very slow morning; that must have been what SCT was doing. It became apparent that they were not doing that; as I saw both aircraft converging and climbing to the same altitude (4;000 feet MSL). I didn't want to reach out to SCT and bother the controller working the Valley Sector while they worked the problem out.At that point; the SCT Valley controller reached out to me on the shout line and told me to turn Aircraft X to a 340 heading now. I replied that I had shipped him off departure end; but I would reach out and try again. I transmitted for Aircraft X to turn right heading 340 immediately. Aircraft X replied to me; as apparently he had never taken the frequency change. He read back the turn to 340; and I issued a traffic alert for Aircraft Y off VNY; who was now at about 2 miles and still converging. I told him to maintain visual separation (even though both aircraft have the same initial altitude of 4;000 feet. I knew separation was lost but I just wanted to make sure they wouldn't hit). Once Aircraft X was established on his heading of 340 and pointed away from Aircraft Y; I re-shipped Aircraft X to SCT. Separation was definitely lost.Don't assume what another controller is doing. As soon as I saw the PMD departure off VNY; I should have called Valley and asked if he wanted me to do something with Aircraft X before shipping Aircraft X.




Synopsis: Burbank Tower Controller reported that an aircraft departed Burbank and became an airborne conflict with a Van Nuys departure on the same routing.
Date: 201910
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: COMAT shipment of [airline] employee contained undeclared items; ion batteries and chemical sprays.




Synopsis: Airline Ground Personnel reported COMAT [Company Material] contained undeclared Hazmat.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Air Carrier X was instructed to go around after company aircraft following him visually came within proximity of Air Carrier X on final. The following aircraft was asked if he still had company aircraft in sight. And; following a period to allow for response did not do so in a timely enough manner as to provide reassurance that the aircraft in fact did indeed. Air Carrier X began to argue as to why he was being sent around. Impress upon pilots the need for compliance to directives given and that questions regarding such; that are inconsequential to safe operation of aircraft; can wait.




Synopsis: Tower Controller expressed concern regarding an Air Carriers questions during a go around instruction; the reporter noting these questions should be ask at a later time.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Content Locker update was released during crew rest about 5 hours prior to push. I loaded this with hotel Wi-Fi (took about 1 ½ hours to download). After this download a message came out that a new AirWatch update was also being released (this happened while downloading my paperwork). A second release was loaded on flight deck with Cellular data. [During] pilot briefing all iPads were placed in airplane mode. At level off I attempted to open [iPad] to discuss IOE items with Captain student. To my surprise AirWatch now does some type of Authentication Request but we don't have Wi-Fi so it fails. 3 out of 4 iPads cannot open. No 777FM; FOM; WOM…nothing! I would love to have had FAA on board asking to see my FM; FOM; WOM.


Second narrative: We requested and received a waiver via [Dispatcher] to continue the flight with only one working EFB. The one working EFB belonged to a check airman which has a different software load. It is highly likely that if we hadn't had a check airman onboard we would have had zero working EFBs! Fortunately the flight proceeded uneventfully.


Synopsis: B777 flight crew on an international flight reported 3 of the 4 onboard iPads were unusable following a software update. The working 4th unit was on a different software version.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TJIG.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for a visual approach When there was a restriction to land only scheduled Air Taxi aircraft into the airport. No General Aviation aircraft allowed. The pilot cancelled their IFR clearance and landed at the airport without further incident. Because the NOTAM doesn't specify that the airport or runway is closed Controllers do not put an X In the map display depicting a runway closure since the airport is only with a restriction on who can land such as air taxis only.Even if the information was displayed on the IDS; this information was visible in another page that is not actively being used when we are controlling traffic. And since it is not required to display an X showing the airport closed it is very easy to forget these limitations. We should not allow airports to place ambiguous restrictions that place the pilots or controllers wondering who should land or not at an airport and this responsibility should not be placed on the air traffic controller but rather on the pilots responsibility to be familiar with NOTAMs regarding airport restrictions. In the future; I will use memory joggers such as writing down on a strip the information to have it always visible and avoid any misunderstandings in the future.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported they cleared a corporate jet aircraft for an approach to an airport that only authorized Air Taxi operations.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MKC.Tower, MO
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D MKC
ATC / advisory: Tower MKC
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
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; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a visual approach to runway 19 at MKC; we were flying on a extended (wide) right base for runway 19 in a descent and were about to start leveling out when ATC (MKC Tower) gave us a minimum safe altitude warning (MSAW). Tower advised us to level out or climb and to check our altimeter setting to the local. I leveled the airplane and began a shallow climb while checking my altitude and surroundings. The altitude we were at wasn't too low for the local terrain. Nor was our altimeter setting off. The aircraft that was being flown is equipped with a terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS) that wasn't triggered at any point in the flight. We continued our approach; joined the visual glide path; and landed without incident. Later; after some research; I learned that MSAWs can be triggered based on descent rate. Our descent rate may have been high during the visual approach. In the future; I will do better to monitor and control my descent rate; especially in wide patterns to urban runways.




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving a minimum safe altitude warning from ATC during a visual approach for landing.