elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout the flight encounters light to moderate mixed icing in the clouds 12;000-18;000 FT.  I noticed my airspeed indicator tape on the EADI had a SPD flag showing and the analog airspeed indicator was 0/45. I called out the anomaly. Crosschecked the Captain's and standby airspeed indicators which both indicated normal. The Captain handed me the QRH and said find a checklist for that. I completed the airspeed unreliable checklist. There was some confusion on the flight deck due to other indications present and not present on our alerting system. Examples: airspeed buffet announced in the FMC. No failure or non-heater lights within the pitot static annunciator system. All dashes in the thrust mode annunciator. Autothrottle limit Annunciation. I personally just finished my yearly qualification with the company training the day before this trip. This situation was uncannily close to training scenarios the training department designed for this year. Located on my airline's training documents on the iPad/Electronic Flight Bag. In short; I realized that we probably had the icing over of a pitot probe tube that affected the First Officer's airspeed indicator and Air Data Computer. The training I recently had helps me to understand that I could have a failed probe heater without the Pitot Heat lights illuminating. The flight continued on to the filed destination airport. Conditions were VFR. The First Officers pitot heat was failing slowly not giving an indication of failure during the flight and only after testing it failed with the light on.Slowly failing pitot probe heater without warning light annunciation.




Synopsis: During climb in icing conditions; a B737-400 First Officer had a SPD flag alert along with an airspeed loss; a FMC buffet alert and other indications that his pitot static system was icing even though no pilot system alerts were present.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20-A1 Katana
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Dassault-Breguet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Instructed to line up and wait on [Runway] 30R. After a short delay; we were cleared for takeoff. As we were on the takeoff roll; a Falcon Jet crossed the Runway at A4. Decided to continue takeoff roll because we were already rotating as we noticed the jet crossing. Jet had exited the runway by the time we flew over A4 and there was no loss of separation.




Synopsis: DA20 flight instructor reported a ground conflict while on takeoff with a Falcon Jet.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Pushback; start; and taxi to Runway were uneventful. We were given a right turn to 090 after departure and cleared for takeoff. After setting takeoff thrust and prior to the '80-knot' call; I heard an aircraft on approach to 5L reporting windshear on final and subsequently executing a go-around. Tower advised the go-around aircraft to continue runway heading since we were taking off on the parallel runway. However; the go-around aircraft reported he was unable runway heading and needed a right turn. This turn towards our takeoff path created a conflict and Tower immediately cancelled our takeoff clearance. I called; 'reject; reject; reject' around 95 knots. The Captain assumed control of the aircraft and stopped the aircraft. We taxied cleared and proceeded to a clear area adjacent to Taxiway to complete all checklists and check brake energy in the performance computer. The performance computer called for an eight-minute wait prior to initiating another takeoff. Once cleared; we coordinated with Dispatch to ensure we had sufficient fuel to complete our flight and a return to the gate was not necessary. Once the weather (TS) moved from the field; the flight to [destination] was uneventful.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported rejecting their takeoff when ATC cancelled their takeoff clearance because of a potential airborne conflict.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Cabin Altitude Warning horn sounded at FL330. An emergency descent was initiated and an emergency was declared. I was given direct [to our destination] and a descent to 10;000 FT. I let the aircraft descend to 9600 FT. When I checked in with approach; ATC gave me 9000 FT. A visual approach was flown to RWY 26.Prior to the Emergency Descent; we had been cleared to descend via the SID; 4000 FT was set in the Altitude window. After donning the O2 masks and starting the descent; a good cross check of the FMC and CDU should have been accomplished.




Synopsis: After receiving a 'descend via' clearance from ATC and setting the altitude alert at 4;000 FT per the procedure the flight crew of a B737NG received a cabin altitude warning and began an emergency descent; cleared to 10;000 FT. They failed to reset the new cleared altitude and a modest overshoot occurred before ATC recleared them to 9;000 FT.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TVF.Airport, MN
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF TVF
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Training flight going to TVF for landings. Setup for left downwind entry for Runway 04 and made traffic calls 10 nm out and while entering downwind. Did a stop [and] go and while rolling down the runway for departure; [we] heard a CTAF call for an aircraft crossing Runway 04. [We] looked to the side of the runway and saw an aircraft crossing the runway hold-short markings. [We] immediately aborted the takeoff and came to a stop approximately 500 [feet] from the intersection while the aircraft crossed. [We] asked if he had seen us and he had not. After the aircraft safely crossed the runway; we initiated another takeoff and returned to base. If the takeoff had not been aborted; I believe that we would've impacted the crossing aircraft.




Synopsis: PA44 flight instructor reported a rejected takeoff due to a ground conflict with crossing traffic at a non-towered airport.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: KOA.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was enroute and was cleared ILS Approach. A VFR 1200 code target tracking east of the localizer northbound climbing slowly. I called traffic to Aircraft X several times but they were unable to get a visual on the 1200 code. I canceled Aircraft X's approach clearance and assigned 9000 feet. The VFR target began to turn to cross the localizer and toward Aircraft X and so I turned Aircraft X 10 degrees right. The targets were close; about 600 feet and about 1 mile lateral. Aircraft X reported the traffic in sight and was re cleared for the ILS Approach. Several minutes later the VFR aircraft identified itself as Aircraft Y. Company traffic; Aircraft Z had reported to me that Aircraft Y following him out of KOA. I had reached out to Aircraft Y but they were not on frequency. When Aircraft Y did come up on frequency I asked if they had had the Aircraft X in sight and he responded that he had. I asked as professionally and courteously as I know how that he please contact center for VFR advisories in the future to avoid this situation in the future. This airport is way past being serviced by enroute radar approach control. There absolutely needs to be a terminal radar and Class C services to that airport.




Synopsis: HCF TRACON Controller had to vector an air carrier off of the ILS Approach to avoid unidentified conflicting VFR traffic.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: On [Date] I was given the work assignment of running the #1 engine on Aircraft X for a BUG (Back-Up Generator) operational and leak check by my lead mechanic; ref log page. I knew that there was a fuel leak in the pylon for the #1 engine as I had written it up the day before; ref log page. At this time the left wing had 30;000 lbs of fuel in it to help find the leak source into the pylon. I declined to run the engine to verify the operation of the relatively minor repair of the BUG replacement compared to the danger of fire from an active fuel leak into the #1 engine's pylon. I explained my reasoning to the pair of shift foreman. They went away and returned with the directive to 'Run the Engine' regardless of the fuel leak or my concerns. The foreman said the Operating Manager had directed this.  At this point I decided to run the engine as they ordered me to do rather than risk losing my job. I ran the engine with an eye for protecting my work partners and the aircraft as much as possible given the situation management forced me into. As the days have gone by since this happened it has bothered me more and more until I felt I had to reach out to the [Aviation Safety Action Program] and Ground Safety committees. Please take note of [Company] Engine Run Policy [Number].'At no time will safety be compromised for operational reasons'.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Maintenance Technician reports Management pressure to ignore safety concerns.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.TRACON, PA
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Airspace: Class C PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: When the ASDEX was turned off; within a minute the radar scope in the Tower Cab flashed with a yellow bar towards the top and the mode said failed. I do not know what that means. It will normally say Mode: normal. In the TRACON they had something in red indicating a failure on two scopes and had to transition to ESL mode. This happened during the national ASDE-X outage to fix a clock issue. Management was aware of the occurrences. Nothing was logged by management. Airway Facilities was not aware of it. A [report] was filed on this and I believe it is closed. The previous [report] was written questioning if the ASDEX outage caused this. The response was 'NO' because they are two independent systems. However; something happened. It seems more than coincidental that all of this took place almost immediately after the ASDEX was taken down. We have spoken with the local Tech Ops guys and agreed a new [report] should be filed to see if this happened anywhere else. The information is no longer available as it only lasts 45 days.I do not understand how this could not have been logged and checked in to. We lost two radar scopes and something occurred on a third one. This type of thing rarely happens and now the data is lost. I would like to know if anyone else in the country had anything similar to this happen. It is my understanding that only one report was originally filed on the outage.




Synopsis: During a scheduled ASDE-X outage this Tower and the TRACON also experienced Primary Radar software outages on some of their radar displays requiring the back-up system to be necessary.The reporter states that the appropriate maintenance office was not notified of the Radar display outages. The reporter wanted to know if this was a coincidence or a known issue that the controllers should have been briefed on.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Captain on Flight XXXX; ZZZ to ZZZ1.During the climb; passing FL330 to FL 350; ECAM ADR1.  Complying with instructions from ECAM; additional ECAMs: AP 1& 2; A/THR; RUD TRV LIM and GPWS.  We also lost both FD (Flight Display).[Advised ATC] and asked for vector to divert to ZZZ2.  ZZZ2 weather was clear; ZZZ had thunderstorms.Phone patch with Dispatch and [Maintenance Control] and advised of situations and intentions.Descended into ZZZ2.  Asked for delaying vectors to get under landing weight.Raw data landing was normal.  Completed [Maintenance Manual].


Second narrative: I was the First Officer on Flight XXXX; ZZZ to ZZZ1.During the climb; passing FL330 to FL 350; ECAM ADR1.  Complying with instructions from ECAM; additional ECAMs: AP 1&2; A/THR; RUD TRV LIM and GPWS.  We also lost both FD (Flight Display).[Advised ATC] and asked for vector to divert to ZZZ2.  ZZZ2 weather was clear; ZZZ had thunderstorms.Phone patch with Dispatch and [Maintenance Control] and advised of situations and intentions.Descended into ZZZ2.  Asked for delaying vectors to get under landing weight.Raw data landing was normal.  Completed [Maintenance Manual].


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported diverting caused by loss of ADR1 and associated NAV and FLIGHT Displays.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was level at 4;000; Aircraft Y was level at 3;500.  The traffic passed; Aircraft X was allowed to descend once it was well past Aircraft Y.  Once they were about a mile apart and on opposite courses; the conflict alert (CA) activated.When working busy traffic; erroneous conflict alert alarms are distracting and take the controller's focus away from actual traffic situations.  This problem seems to have gotten worse with the implementation of Fusion radar processing at NCT.  These situations should be documented and reviewed to identify problems in the system; and then those problems should be fixed.




Synopsis: NCT Controller reports of aircraft being separated and then after they passed about a mile apart the conflict alert went off.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Military Trainer
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was providing OJTI for the first time since the COVID lockdown. My trainee was on his first day back training. Aircraft X was doing practice approaches at ZZZ. When they were done; they came off [Runway] XXR heading. My trainee gave them their clearance to ZZZ1. Aircraft X read back all correctly except for the altitudes which my trainee promptly reissued. At that time; I had to turn Aircraft Y onto final at ZZZ2 as my trainee did not do in a timely manner. We then had a call from ZZZ3 and a request from another aircraft back to back. I failed to realize that Aircraft X did not enter their new squawk code and thus did not tag up in STARS. They ended up flying for 98 miles without a handoff or point out to other sectors at 12;000 feet. This can only be attributed to not having provided OJTI for the past 6 months. Otherwise if I had been working the position by myself this probably would not have happened.I would recommend a redoubling of effort to scanning while providing OJTI or while performing CIC duties for OJTI.




Synopsis: TRACON instructor reported an aircraft departing and not squawking; flying close to 100 miles through various different airspace at 12;000 feet.