elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B BWI
ATC / advisory: Tower BWI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I briefed the Captain on our STAR into BWI and that we could expect a Visual Approach to Runway 10 and that we would back the Visual Approach up with the ILS. Descent and Approach Checks followed. We were cleared for a Visual Approach to Runway 10 into BWI. A normal approach on the ILS was coupled with the autopilot. I disengaged the autopilot around 800 feet and hand flew the approach. I also verbally announced to the Captain that I was outside and referencing the PAPI. I maintained 'red over white' the entire way down; but began to see that the PAPI was taking me below the Glideslope on the ILS. The 'Glideslope' audible warning began to go off around 500 to 600 feet (?).The Captain instructed me to level off to allow the aircraft to get back on the glideslope. I began to slow my rate of descent; but by that time I was around 150 to 200 feet and a normal landing would occur in the touchdown zone. We landed uneventfully. The Captain and I debriefed the event and he agreed that we both saw I had the aircraft stabilized on the PAPI perfectly; but the PAPI was taking us below the ILS glide slope.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported the aircraft was stabilized on the PAPI; but was indicating low on the ILS Glideslope.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
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
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Drone passed over left wing descend through 3;100 feet on IRNMN2 [arrival]. Estimating within 100 feet. Reported to ATC.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew had a near miss with a UAS while descending on a STAR.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying the River Visual Approach to RWY 19 at DCA; [when approximately] 4 NM from landing; we got a GPWS 'Obstacle; Obstacle' warning. I was scanning outside and inside the cockpit and did not feel we were near any obstacles that would trigger a GPWS warning. I did look down and notice that I was slightly below the advisory VNAV 'snowflake.' Captain took the controls and made a slight correction to the glidepath and course. GPWS warning went away and we landed uneventfully.On the River Visual approach to RWY 19; we fly very close to some buildings as we come down the Potomac River. It may have been a combination of being close to buildings; being slightly below the VPA snowflake; and having a momentary sink rate greater than normal that triggered the GWPS warning.




Synopsis: CRJ200 First Officer reports receiving a GPWS 'Obstacle; Obstacle' warning during the River Visual Approach to Runway 19 at DCA. The warning occurred at 4 NM with the aircraft slightly below the recommended altitude and at a higher than normal sink rate. The Captain took the controls and made a slight adjustment stopping the warning.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Loss of oil pressure and ruff running engine after a VOR/DME Approach during the initial phase of a circle to land on Runway XX. Turned immediately towards runway and made a smooth uneventful landing.




Synopsis: C172 Pilot reported rough running engine with loss of oil pressure that resulted in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending via CREDE3; we were set up and planning on RNAV RNP Z 16R with the CLFFF translation selected. Through 14-13;000 ft; Approach advised unable RNAV; expect Visual 16R. I prompted the Captain if he wanted me to reprogram the FMC to the ILS16R or leave it as is. Approaching LONGS and descending Captain reprogrammed FMC to ILS16R approach and executed before it could be [verified]. This caused the CREDE3 arrival to be dropped and the aircraft entered CWS (Control Wheel Steering). I reprogrammed CREDE3 and using HDG initiated a left turn to 355 degrees. However; by this point we had overshot LONGS. ATC assigned HDG 310 and 11;000 feet. We [continued] to a visual approach and landing. Going into Denver; approach and runway changes are expected. The biggest lesson here is the importance of [FMC route verification]; heads down on CDU in a high workload environment; and connecting a transition fix into the FMC; without clearance.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported a track deviation occurred on arrival into DEN following a late clearance change and improper FMC loading.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was assigned to work Aircraft X for a discrepancy of 'FMC FAULTS' (Flight Management Computer Fault) that was called in on the radio by the flight crew. When I arrived at the aircraft; I was informed that the flight crew had reset the system twice and it was okay. This is not the first time this type of action has happened where the flight crews are resetting circuit breakers and aircraft systems and are not documenting the maintenance performed on aircraft as required per the FARs (Code of Federal Regulations). They are also are not accomplishing the required ops (Operational) test; system test or LMP test per the Maintenance Manual; Troubleshooting Manual; General Procedures Manual.Flight crew and MOC (Maintenance Control) are not following Maintenance Procedures. MOC are instructing flight crews to reset circuit breakers at the gate; when it is not their function and they are not qualified to perform specific maintenance task such as LMP test on LMP components and systems. They are also not documenting these discrepancies or the actions taken when they reset circuit breakers and are not documenting the maintenance references required. The Flight crews are being instructed to contact MOC by aircraft maintenance supervisors and when the Flight crew calls MOC; MOC is instructing them to reset breakers. At times; the flight crew is not aware that the item is an LMP component or system; which requires the work to be performed by a qualified LMP Technician and requires an LMP test. Which the flight crew can't perform because they're not qualified and if done by unqualified personnel the aircraft LMP status must be downgrade per the GPM (General Process Manual).Flight crew needs to enter all discrepancies in the logbook when they call aircraft maintenance for assistance and inform them of a discrepancy on the aircraft. MOC needs to stop instructing flight crews to reset circuit breakers at the gate and interrupting critical aircraft systems without allowing qualified Aircraft Technicians to address the discrepancy and accomplish all required test and procedures required per Maintenance Manual and GPM.




Synopsis: Technician reported that an A321 flight crew reset circuit breaker and did not document this maintenance action or perform follow-up system tests as required by the maintenance manual.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: B747-800 Advanced
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were cruising at FL370 and knew of a 747-800 freighter converging off our right at a higher altitude. [Center] told us about the 747 and even elaborated that it was a 'brand new' airplane. My First Officer and I mentioned to each other the implications of being behind the 747 and I had read once about its new wing design and wondered what kind of wake the plane might cause. The 747 soon was out of sight and we elected to climb to FL380 for a better ride. First Officer was flying and somewhere around FL375 we encountered the most violent wake turbulence I've ever experienced. I took control of our aircraft and for a brief moment could not stop the roll to the right. I lowered the nose because the airspeed had decrease; I had the stall bar in view (HUD) as well. I elected to descend quickly and told [Center] that we were in 'that guys wake' and they said no problem; descend to whatever we needed and also to offset to the upwind side of our route.Once we regained control of our aircraft; we checked on the flight attendants and passengers. Two or three passengers had bumped their heads and all three of our flight attendants were momentarily airborne/off their feet. We made sure a medical divert was not needed and continued to [destination]. We called Dispatch and informed them that the aircraft would be written up for a severe turbulence encounter. I communicated with the flight attendants and made sure no one needed paramedics upon arrival.Not sure I have an answer. Some of these bigger and newer aircraft (747-800 or whatever it's called and the A380) I really don't want to be anywhere behind them. Incidentally; [Center] said we were 13 miles behind this aircraft when this event took place. It was eye-opening to say the least.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: A B737-700 encountered severe wake turbulence in trail of B747-800 that was almost 14 NM ahead of them; resulting in strong roll to the right and loss of altitude.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: 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: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While operating [this] flight; we had a GPWS event. It was night under VMC conditions; and we had been cleared for the visual approach to Runway 30 into ZZZ. We descended to the appropriate altitude and started to configure for landing and as we were doing so; the GPWS event occurred. We immediately responded by pulling up; leveling off; and confirming that we were indeed at a safe altitude. We continued on the visual approach and landed without any issue.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported GPWS Alert on approach for a night landing.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Assigned to descend via. Inside ZZZZZ assigned 300 knots. Captain used the speed window to adjust speed. Approaching ZZZZZ1; realized he was crossing low. He attempted to correct but still crossed low by what I estimate to be 500-800 feet low. I looked and realized he did not use Speed Intervention but instead had used LVL Change. ATC did not query us about the error nor was there traffic in the area.Captain new to aircraft and seat with limited recency of experience confused speed/descent modes. FO (PM) limited recency of experience involved with approach programming and communications did not notice the error.For our part better announcement and verification of MCP changes. Better monitoring during busy descent.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported an altitude deviation and cited the Captain being new to the aircraft and both pilots' lack of flying contributed to the event.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After putting down gear handle at FAF; right main gear light did not indicate down. [We] had time to discuss next actions with crew for [a] go around [and] notified ATC of [the] situation and intentions. [We] climbed to safe altitude and entered hold over VOR. [The] crew discussed next actions; [and] cycled gear to [the] same result. [We] discussed next actions and plans between [the] flight crew. After [the] decision to blow down gear; [we] briefed ATC on plans and intentions and [requested priority]. [We] briefed passengers on [the] situation and safety procedures. [We] executed [the] checklist for gear not coming down. Procedure were successful and indicated all gear down. [We] notified ATC of intent to fly-by [for] visual confirmation of all gear down then proceed back out for a full-stop landing and shutdown on runway. [We] executed the plan. After successful landing; [we] evacuated passengers and gear [was] inspected for safe towing. [The] airplane [was] towed to maintenance facility.




Synopsis: CE-560XL First Officer reported difficulties in extending the landing gear.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: DOD Contract Mission supporting military training and was enroute to the ZZZ MOA operating under public use. Aircraft X cleared on heading 350 and descended to FL190 to enter the ZZZ MOA at altitude. Traffic called out off the nose opposite direction FL200 Aircraft Y. Center queried Aircraft X on altitude. Pilot glanced at altimeter and noted 19;140 and the response from Aircraft X was; '19.1 correcting.' Pilot was given a phone number to call with Center upon landing regarding a possible pilot deviation. Upon further discussion with the Center supervisor; Center indicated a loss of separation 700 ft/3.9 NM between Aircraft X and an Aircraft Y. Review of the aircraft Garmin recorded altitude data indicated an altitude of 19;235 MSL at [time] (approximately 7 seconds before the reported loss of separation) with an altitude of 19;181 ft at the Center time of separation loss. Pilot human performance considerations include simultaneous discussing weather (frequency management) for the mission on the other radio; potentially taking scan away from direct altitude scan while also transitioning pilot's visual lookout externally to pick up the Aircraft Y opposite direction traffic. Lack of autopilot / altitude hold mode was a contributing factor but not a substitute for basic air work altitude hold at FL290.




Synopsis: Military pilot reported an airborne conflict with opposite direction UAV.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU Fuel System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Avionics
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: ZZZ requested Engineering Authorization (EA) for damage to APU fuel line. Fuel line [was] not available in stock company wide or Boeing. EA 332551 issued for deferral till no later than Date. Aircraft left ZZZ without documentation of any work accomplished in ATA 28 or ATA 49. Maintenance Control contacted ZZZ Supervisor Name and advised him of documentation requirements. Name assured us that the monitor in question will be generated; but was waiting on manpower.No documentation of work [was] accomplished or deferred. Program shows no items in ATA 28 for last 30 days. Have Maintenance document any maintenance items worked. Have Maintenance document deferrals; including those provided by EA from Engineering. Have all maintenance deferrals out of base maintenance worked off an internal RON work; documented per GPM (Procedures Manual) 17.02 or line per GMP 17.03.




Synopsis: Lead Technician reported required maintenance logbook and electronic entries were not completed prior to the aircraft operating in revenue service.