elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Due to Sigmet 7 and Sigmet Juliet 2 we were aware of the eruption of X Volcano in the area and on our route.  At FL320 we communicated with ATC via CPDLC about observations.  They asked if we observed VA (Volcanic Activity); we responded; 'No VA seen.  Dark sky no moon. Lights down-EFVS shows clouds below.'  We entered a layer of IMC and identified it as volcanic ash.  Left and right turnoff lights were on; showing a very different layer: dark shadows; haze; shadows and contrast.  Not normal diffusion from clouds.  We monitored engine instruments/airpseed and immediately contacted Center on voice/VHF; reported the VA and requested and received immediate climb to FLXXX.  At FLXYY there was no smell; no dust in the cockpit.  No Saint Elmo's fire. No abnormal indications from engines or airspeed.  The onset was sudden.  At FLXXX clear skies returned and the layer lasted below us.QRH and FOM and training all underscored the importance of fast action; and reporting to ATC to alert other flights.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported volcanic activity while airborne.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying the published missed with autopilot in NAV and VS ALT to capture 4;000 [feet] as assigned by ATC. I was instructed to fly heading 070. After setting the heading bug to 070 I forgot to switch AP from NAV to HDG mode. The autopilot then started into the hold turning right to 161. [ATC] asked where I was going and at that point lost control trying to turn too steeply back to 070. In an unusual attitude I was trying to recover. Eventually; [I] hit the straight and level button on the autopilot and climbed above the cloud deck; got reoriented and rejoined the approach and landed without further problems.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported experiencing inflight loss of control while trying to correct to the proper track during a go-around.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We got the clearance for takeoff. The student had a hard time holding centerline during the taxi; so my feet were on the rudder as well. [Student applied] full power and started acceleration. The airplane was on the right side of the centerline; so I was helping him to intercept the centerline with my feet. We were slowly intercepting. [I believe he tried to] intercept the centerline of the runway [too] quickly; and kicked the left rudder abruptly. At the time; airspeed was around 50 and [we] started to skid left and right. I took the controls right away; slowed it down and made it stable. It was close to [a taxiway]; so I thought we had better abort the takeoff and move off from the runway. I declared the aborted takeoff and moved off the runway.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported rejecting the takeoff after the student experienced directional control difficulties on the takeoff roll.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After we pushed off gate XX; our pushback crew stopped the aircraft at a slight angle toward gate XY; while we were facing the service road between the ramp and the gate XX Safety Zone. The nose of the aircraft was approximately 30 feet from the service road.  I cleared my left side; my FO (First Officer) cleared the right side; and we began our right turn to taxi to Runway XXR. Since we were very close to the service road; our nose and left wing needed to cross the service road during the right turn.  As I was looking into my turn to the right; I noticed motion from the left side of the aircraft using my peripheral vision.  When I turned my head to the left; I saw a fast moving (Company) tug towing baggage carts approaching from my left traveling east to west on the service road. The vehicle did not stop and continued on the road traveling between my left wing and nose. As the driver was passing by; it appeared that he did not see us. I immediately applied the brakes to prevent the tug from colliding with our aircraft. We came to a stop just short of the road as the vehicle passed by. The driver swerved left off the service road and pulled alongside another (Company) vehicle and began talking to the driver of the other vehicle.  I set the parking brake; called (Company) Operations on the radio to report the near-miss incident with tug. The tug remained stopped momentarily while the two drivers spoke to each other.  The second driver seemed to be telling the offending driver that he was blocking our aircraft and needed to move away.  Tug did a looping turn and departed the area.  If we had not stopped; we would have had a collision with the fast moving tug and baggage carts.




Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported a ground conflict with a tug during taxi.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Lighting
Component problem: Failed
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 Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Night; cruise; smooth; flight deck lighting (dome lights) on - bright. Dry bright white light flash; and loud pop. Captain's dome light burst - debris contained within dome light panel. No odor; fumes; smoke. We checked for all of the aforementioned items; as well as for circuit breakers condition. Evidently; the Captain's dim dome lightbulb burst. After evaluation; and turning off dome lights completely (remove power to the dome lights); we continued to destination without further issue.Having flown the Airbus for almost 20 years; I have only experienced this twice… both in the last 3 months. Coincidence? Or perhaps a shipment of bad bulbs? We wrote up the defect; and sent a note to Maintenance. I write this report so as to document the peculiarity of this circumstance; and that; if necessary; a review of this event could lead to further understanding. Debriefed with First Officer and with contract Maintenance.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported cockpit dome light failure.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Other Check Ride
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was administering a private pilot ASEL add-on to a commercial rated helicopter applicant with instrument helicopter rating as well.  During recovery from emergency descent; myself and applicant heard loud bang.  Sounded like baggage door opening.  Applicant stated he was having trouble flying aircraft and asked me to fly aircraft.  IAS approximately 80 knots; altitude 1000 FTt.  At 80 knots; I had trouble keeping aircraft going straight.  Full left aileron; approximately full left rudder.  I decided to slow aircraft and climb to approximately 2500 FT.  At 2500 FT; I slowed aircraft to determine controllability at different airspeeds.  Decision was made to fly 70 knots IAS on final.  At this point we were 19 NM NW of ZZZ with left flap at approximately 30 degrees; right flap 0 degrees.  Flew back and landed; wind approximately 090 degrees at 10 gusting 13.  Landed without incident.  My concerns: 1) Is this an 'AD' concern? 2) Based on my experience; I believe this would be a major flight control issue for a private pilot. 3) I am 6'4' and it was very uncomfortable flying aircraft in this condition due to flight control pressures required to maintain control.

Callback: The flaps had been extended during the emergency descent with the left flap failing to retract during clean up from the maneuver.  The reporter states that consideration was given to extending the right flap and rejected due to the fact that the aircraft was controllable and the possibility of making the situation worse.  Post flight revealed that a left flap track bearing had failed causing the flap to jam.  The cable connection between the left and right flap had snapped and was likely responsible for the loud bang that was heard.  Flaps had been manually preflighted by both pilots during the walk around prior to flight.



Synopsis: C172 Examiner reports a left flap jammed at 30 degrees when the flaps are selected up after an emergency descent with the examinee at the controls.  Examinee passes control of the aircraft to the Examiner due to controlability issues.  Reporter finds aircraft marginally controllable but is able to climb and land at a suitable airport.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Luscombe (Silvaire) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I had just departed Runway XXR to do some training in the traffic pattern in ZZZ. We were instructed to extend our departure leg to allow aircraft on the parallel to turn crosswind before us. After that; Aircraft Z turned crosswind. We were given clearance to turn crosswind about another mile beyond them to join left traffic for XXL to start pattern work. Aircraft Y behind me was given instruction to extend upwind and to look for Aircraft X traffic on the crosswind leg - my student and I - and to report them in sight. He reported that he had the Aircraft Z traffic in sight and Tower gave them instructions to turn crosswind north of the Aircraft X traffic. Aircraft Y appeared to have seen the Aircraft Z ahead of us that was already on downwind but had not seen us turning crosswind to downwind. On downwind; I heard the situation play out on the radio and became aware of a potential hazard as we approached the normal crosswind leg. I saw an aircraft on the ADS-B screen on our transponder showing it approaching from our left and climbing with 200 - 100 feet below. I grabbed controls of the aircraft as Tower began advising Aircraft Y of Aircraft X traffic ahead; and told him to descend 200 feet immediately. I saw the aircraft approaching us directly from the left and did a climbing left-hand chandelle to avoid the converging traffic that appeared to still be climbing. I am not certain that they saw us in time to begin a descent; which is why I did not initiate a right-hand turn as stated in Part 91 for right-of-way rules. The aircraft departed the airspace to the west and we continued flying out traffic pattern with no action towards the other aircraft from ATC.




Synopsis: C172 Flight Instructor reported having to execute an evasive maneuver during an NMAC event while on visual approach as the other aircraft misidentified traffic; resulting in a loss of separation.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PNE.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Queen Air 65/70 (Seminole)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D PNE
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL; Tower PNE
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being vectored for the ILS 24 PNE under VFR conditions; we were advised of a potential conflict. I was under the hood; the safety pilot took control and performed an evasive action. The other aircraft; a single engine; continued on course.




Synopsis: Piper Seminole took evasive action after experiencing NMAC.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was in conflict with another aircraft at 36000 feet. I queried the second aircraft if they were able higher altitude to cross; they replied unable 38000 feet but could accept 37000 feet. I then asked Aircraft X if they were able 38000 feet. The response was heavily accented and sounded like 'Able 380.' I asked to confirm; they then said what sounded like 'Standby.' A moment later; I heard what sounded like 'Unable 380.' I then climbed the crossing aircraft to 37000 feet. A couple minutes later; I noticed Aircraft X radar target had changed to a FREE track. I asked what fix they were proceeding to; they replied 'We're heading 280.' I became puzzled as to why and then cleared them to a fix on their route. They made their initial turn in the confines of the previous sector; but I did not notice that maneuver until they were in my airspace.I reviewed the tape and was able to then decipher what they said when I initially asked if they could 'Accept FL380 for crossing traffic;' they replied with '[garbled] heading 280.' I spoke with the Operations Manager to see if a Brasher notification was needed; but he said 'No; we should have caught that.'Readback/hearback is to blame. Heavy foreign accent is contributory. [Recommend] Fast-track Datalink/CPDLC. There is an increasing number of foreign flights operating in US airspace. Voice communications are becoming more problematic and readback/hearback errors of this nature could end badly. Most; if not all; long-haul airliners are equipped for CPDLC; as is NavCanada and Eurocontrol. If we want to maintain the safest system in the world; we need to adopt appropriate safety technologies.




Synopsis: ZMP ARTCC Controller asked an aircraft if they could accept a climb clearance to 38;000 feet. The responses were misunderstood by the Controller due to the pilot's foreign accent. The Controller noticed the aircraft turned to a 280 degree heading. The aircraft was still in the previous sectors airspace so the turn was not coordinated.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Aircraft: B777-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B787-1000
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: East configuration; landing Runway 19L departing runways 10L/10R. Aircraft X was loaded on 10L; Aircraft Y was on approximately 3 mile final. I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff; when they did not roll quickly enough I canceled their takeoff clearance. There was no response and I gave approximately 3-5 seconds to see if they were complying. At that time an aircraft on the adjacent runway said 'He's still rolling' I sent Aircraft Y around somewhere between 1-2 mile final. Once in the upwind I did a radio check with Aircraft X in case they had been NORDO. They responded with just their call sign. I changed Aircraft X to departure. NCT issued the brasher per the CIC. Aircraft X returned to tower frequency a few times confused on how or why to call us. I instructed Aircraft X to contact company upon landing at their destination and to get the tower number from them; then call the Tower.This is not the first time I have had a foreign air carrier ignore a cancellation of takeoff clearance. This is the first time it has caused a go around for me. I am not sure if it is company policy to not cancel after a certain point but; outright ignoring control instructions that are for their and others safety is unacceptable.




Synopsis: SFO Tower Controller reported an unsafe operation with a foreign departure and an arrival to the same runway.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was preparing to land [I] noted that there was a low voltage situation developing. Cleared to land; and while on base leg noted that I could not lower my gear. I turned final and was deciding whether to abort and land on the nearby river when I noted that my radio communication with the Tower was failing. I could hear them; however it did not appear that they were receiving me. With another attempt at lowering the gear (unsuccessful); I exited the pattern at low altitude and headed for the river (as an amphibian that seemed to be my best option to minimize personal risk; aircraft damage and interruption of flight operations).Before I could reach the river; my engine started to cut out (due to below minimums on voltage) and [I] noticed a large rock quarry pond immediately under my left wing. I diverted into a left downwind to land on the quarry pond and while turning base lost all engine power. I maintained my airspeed to clear trees and power lines and made a successful (though glassy water so a bounce or two) dead-stick landing at the flooded quarry.Immediately on touchdown I called my FBO and requested they immediately call the Tower and notify them of my successful touchdown with NO injuries or damage. (I tried to look up the number on AirNav for the tower however was unsuccessful). Airport police were dispatched to assess the situation and I confirmed the lack of injuries or damage.After calling my A&P to come assist in repairs I attempted to ascertain the loss of system voltage.We checked aircraft systems and determined a possible left gear motor problem. The plan was to fly to the [home base] area and land on another body of water and make repairs there. I notified the Tower; took off with that intention; however noted warning messages on my MFD (Multi-function Flight Display) of low voltage so immediately returned and landed again on the quarry pond. After further assessment and correction of a loose cable; it was determined that it was safe to attempt a wheel landing [at the airport] which I completed safely; with no incident. Further discovery into the causal chain of events will be conducted to ensure safe continued operation of my aircraft.




Synopsis: SeaRey pilot reported landing in a quarry after experiencing inflight engine failure.