elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PVU.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Other Aerial Survey
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Photo
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E S56
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Aircraft component: Tablet
Reporter organization: Other Aerial Survey
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During my pre-flight for my survey mission I checked TFR's that may be a factor via my iPad and the ForeFlight App.  Nothing was found.  Foreflight says they update TFR information direct from the FAA every 15 minutes.  I then flew from the PVU airport towards my photo site.  During the climb I saw nothing that resembled a fire in the area.  As it turns out there was a firefighting TFR right off my left side surface to 12;000 MSL.  I missed it by about 3 miles; maybe a little less.  I only missed this TFR by luck; since I had not yet reached an altitude where I felt I could reach Salt Lake Center I did not have a flight following.  I worked my photo mission and on my way back to PVU ATC asked me if I was aware of the TFR ahead of me.  He helped me avoid it on the way in.  I feel a lesson can be learned from this.  TFR's appear out of nowhere without much warning. Foreflight is a great tool however from now on I will take the extra few minutes to call a briefer and make sure the areas I am working in contain no sudden TFR's.  The TFR finally appeared on Foreflight nearly 45 minutes after I landed; it had been in effect for nearly 7 hours at that point.




Synopsis: Aerial Survey pilot reports discovering airborne that a firefighting TFR exists in his area that is not displayed on his iPad with a Foreflight application.  Notam's were not checked prior to flight and the TFR did not appear on the iPad until seven hours after it had been activated.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for takeoff on Runway 19R. They self cancelled; and exited the runway. I returned them to the end; and told them to expect a few minutes for departure due to traffic on the intersecting runways. The Controller working those runways then called to give me the intersection earlier than I expected. He had an aircraft departing 25R; and I got control of the intersection after that. I had an aircraft on final for 19R; about 3 miles out. I asked Aircraft X if they could take it on the roll; and got an affirmative. I then told them position and hold; don't plan on stopping; to get them out in front of the lander. I issued traffic to both the lander and Aircraft X; and cleared the Aircraft X for takeoff as soon as the departure traffic passed through the intersection; and I had control of it. All of this worked as planned; and would have been fine a short time ago. However; with the 'virtual intersection' rules now in effect; I forgot to use those; and had traffic landing the virtually intersecting Runway 25L that was about a half mile from the inner edge of the go/no go box. This was Aircraft Y; landing 25L. They landed without incident; and there were no proximity problems; however I did not properly apply the rules; and had a procedural error. Had I waited 3 or 4 more seconds; I would have still been able to depart in front of the lander; but would have been legal. After 20 years of not having to think about the landers to the non-intersecting runway; other than if they were going around; I simply forgot the new rule.On my part; do not try to push the traffic out quite so quickly. If I had waited; it still would have worked. We were not in delays; and no one had been waiting long. I relied on my past experience; which usually works great; but not in a case where the rules have changed. I rushed; and had an undesired result. I would recommend that we have a phase-in period for major changes like this; however. In the past; when there has been a rule change that was totally opposite of what we were used to; we were given a 30 or 60 day window where the rule was in effect; but if you used the old procedure; they considered it a learning experience; and reminded you that we had new rules. If this was the case; I would have just had one of those learning experiences.




Synopsis: Controller reports loss of separation  due to 'Virtual Intersection' rules that were not executed correctly.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action

Narrative: On arrival into IAH we were given an altitude to descend to on the arrival. After arriving at the assigned altitude ATC called out a traffic advisory at between our 10 to 12 o'clock and 500 ft above us. We got a TCAS TA and were still unable to locate the 172. Then we were given a TCAS RA to climb which confused myself and the Captain because the traffic was 500 ft above us. This caused a moment of delay and then I responded to the RA by disconnecting the autopilot and climbing. We then got and RA to descend which I then did and then another to climb. I could see the traffic on the MFD was still to our 11 o'clock position so I made a climbing turn to the right to get out of the situation. Once I did that the RA went away and ATC asked us about our altitude deviation. The Captain replied that we had responded to an RA and we returned to our previous course and altitude. The separation provided by ATC was inadequate. We were unable to acquire visual contact with the 172.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 crew received conflicting commands during an RA. This followed a traffic advisory from ATC. Following a second RA vertical command reversal; crew turned away from traffic displayed on their MFD to resolve the conflict.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Regarding a flight in the Hudson River NY Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA): I have flown here regularly since 1982. Many times. Today's observations: The tour helicopters think they own the airspace and routinely MISS required transmissions and do not fly as the SFRA indicates. While southbound at 1000 feet approaching the Statute of Liberty; no less than TWO tour helos climbed up through 1000 feet and across my path without transmitting. After a course reversal south of the VZ; headed northbound at 1000. There was a banner tow with a banner heading southbound below me. I transmitted 'hey you're on the wrong side'; and I heard a reply 'I'm in the middle of the river'. Two more tour helos crossed my path as they did course reversals over the GW bridge from northbound to southbound without transmitting. The Heliports use the 123.05 CFTAF frequency as their personal ramp frequency; clogging the frequency with 'land at spot 2' etc nonsense. It's time to clarify things: Per the regs at between 1000-1300 I'm supposed to be 'somewhat' protected from these sightseeing helos on 'local operations' from climbing through my 'mandatory' 1000 MSL 'floor'.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported observing several tour helicopters deviating from published procedures in the Hudson River Special Flight Rules Area.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Level at 10000 ft. near ZABER intersection; ZABER 6 arrival into CLE. Traffic appeared on TCAS at 10 o'clock position and 400 ft. below. Received a traffic advisory from TCAS followed by a 'monitor vertical speed' followed by a resolution advisory to climb. PF (Pilot Flying) followed advisory and we climbed to 10;300 ft. Advisory cleared.  We returned to 10;000 ft. and I advised ATC of our deviation and a resolution advisory. Traffic was never reported to us by ATC. Traffic not in communication with ATC.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported responding to a RA; making evasive manuever; while level at 10;000 ft.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I made takeoff call outs as normal through rotation. As I retracted the landing gear; I noticed the captain slow our climb rate and point outside. I looked to our 1-2 O'clock position and noticed a flock of Canada geese; approximately 8 in number; flying in our direction. The captain lowered the nose to attempt to fly below the flock; but there was not enough distance and the flock passed directly above the flight deck windows. This was immediately followed by the sound and sensation of impact(s); and the smell of burning meat. We immediately [advised ATC]; and returned to ZZZ; conducting an overweight landing per SOP.Cause: Geese coloration blending in with MVFR overcast conditions; and insufficient time to react once flock was sighted.




Synopsis: ERJ First Officer reported that a bird strike on takeoff resulted in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LOM.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G LOM
ATC / advisory: UNICOM LOM
Second aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The second aircraft; a twin Cessna 310; after hearing me announce left downwind for Runway 24 at LOM; mumbled something about being on a 'wide left base' at Wings. After two minutes with no subsequent transmissions; he appeared directly in front of me on final with no announcement and no response to my calls. The pilot of the Cessna made no response; offered no apology or explanation; and forced a go-around for my aircraft. I called Wings UNICOM and instructed them to obtain the tail number of the offending aircraft; to which they replied affirmatively. The PIC in the Cessna then said 'Give it up; brother' without identifying his tail number. I completed the pattern; landed immediately; and parked (at line service direction) next to the twin Cessna (who had parked his aircraft in a manner not approved by the Wings line crew). I went into the FBO office and inquired as to the whereabouts of the pilot. Another pilot; who had been in the aircraft; stated that the pilot had 'already left the airport' and refused to give any details about the pilot. I returned to my aircraft; having calmed down sufficiently to resume my takeoff/landing practice. Upon departing; the second pilot called me on the UNICOM frequency and apologized for the actions of the other pilot; saying he 'didn't blame me' for being upset. The twin Cessna pilot was either unaware of; or contemptuous of; standard pattern entry practices and radio work at UNICOM airports. I intend to report this incident to the local FSDO in Philadelphia.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot in the pattern at LOM reports an NMAC with a C310 entering on the left base with minimal communication.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.TRACON, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had two opposite direction GA aircraft with assigned altitudes only 500 feet different than ours. We were level at 6000 feet. GA aircraft crept toward us vertically. We received multiple RAs (resolution advisories). Closest point was zero separation laterally and 300 feet vertically. Incidentally; these aircraft also triggered an RA with the aircraft in front of us as reported on the frequency.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported an near mid-air collision with a light aircraft in the vicinity of RBV at 6000 feet.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Temperature Indication
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: 91.205 VFR required equipment oil temperature gauge inoperative. Student did the pre-flight as I was running late to the flight school. I arrive and greet the owner of the flight school as they are getting ready to leave for the night. I tell them (the owners) I am going on a night flight tonight and they tell me to have a good flight. I do a briefing with my student on tonight's flight and we do a complete run-up not realizing the oil temp was inoperative. Once we reach ZZZ only do I realize that the oil temp has stayed in the same position the whole flight. We get back to our home airport and then I see the Discrepancies booklet indicating the oil temperature gauge has been noted.I failed to check the discrepancies booklet before the flight and continued the flight anyways. The owners of the flight school have known of the issue before my flight and failed to notify me of the issue. They continued to fly the aircraft today not fixing the issue.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported missing the log book entry for an inoperative oil temperature gauge that was required equipment for night VFR training flight and conducting the flight.
Date: 201505
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Zone disregarded flight deck direction and put a mechanic in an unsafe situation.The mechanic was working on the TV panel at the entry of the aircraft.  We asked via operations frequency to stop boarding for maintenance.  Boarding continued.  We asked operations why.  The response was that zone had decided we did not need to delay boarding.  The zone person made that decision without asking for additional information. We had asked to delay boarding because the mechanic was being pushed up against an exposed high power panel where he was working by passengers boarding.Who is the final authority of the aircraft once the crew is onboard and passengers have started boarding?FOM states ...The captain's authority is absolute during all flight-related operations including pre- and post-flight decisions. I reviewed the FOM and found references to coordination including dispatch and [operations] but nowhere could I find that zone control had authority.I would like an answer to who has final authority in this instance.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain attempted to stop passenger boarding to protect a Mechanic working near hazardous equipment but a company zone person refused his request; overriding the Captain's authority as described in the FOM.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right engine surge/stall followed by EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) 1100; N2 113.1; and fire smell coming from vents. [Advised ATC] and accomplished the appropriate QRH emergency checklist. Returned to ZZZ and landed safely.


Second narrative: During climb at approximately FL190 a loud boom was heard. There was a pronounced yaw and shutter of the aircraft. The strong smell of smoke was present. The RH EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) was red as was the N2 indication. The RH engine was shutdown utilizing the severe damage checklist. [ATC was and advised and] we returned to ZZZ. The emergency equipment was requested as a precautionary measure.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported an engine failure and return to the departure airport.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Started the APU and brought the packs on line. Cabin attendants reported a strange smell and the appearance of smoke in the cabin. Called line maintenance to inspect the problem. By the time line maintenance arrived at the aircraft; the smoke and odor had disappeared. Continued boarding the aircraft. Flight departed uneventfully.


Second narrative: Upon starting of APU; Cabin Crew reported faint smoke in cabin. After checking the smoke out; it did not appear to be from a fire (no fire warnings; etc present on flight deck). We called line maintenance out for a check and by the time he arrived the smoke had cleared. The flight went on uneventful and there were zero passenger complaints upon arrival.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported that a faint smoke appeared in passenger cabin during preflight with the APU supplying packs. Smoke dissipated prior to Maintenance arrival.