elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence; Rain; Thunderstorm; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Was cleared to descend from FL270 to FL230 and at same time handed off from one Chicago Center Controller to the next when severe turbulence was encountered. This lasted approximately 5 minutes. The windscreen iced over immediately. The autopilot kicked off. During this time I hit my head hard on the cockpit ceiling twice. There were short periods of time that I could not read the flight instruments because of motion. I tried to maintain attitude within 30 degrees of bank and pitch within 10 degrees of level. At times the attitude indicator pitched up while the VSI showed a descent. By the time I was able to regain complete control the aircraft was 2;000 feet to 3;000 feet below my assigned altitude of FL230. I reported this to the next sector Controller who issued a new clearance. The rest of the flight was unremarkable. The route of flight was South of and parallel to a line of thunderstorms. Just before the turbulence began the onboard radar suddenly showed an area of red immediately in front. This did not appear to be present until just as we entered the area. I feel that this occurrence could have been avoided if I would have deviated to the south further from the line of convective activity. The Center controllers were very proactive in providing me weather radar updates during the entire flight. In the future I will stay further away from convective activity. It concerns me deeply that I was involved in an altitude deviation that could have endangered another aircraft. The aircraft was equipped with a stormscope and onboard radar. I did not have aboard access to NWS radar. Perhaps if it had been onboard I would have had a better understanding of the overall picture and would have moved my route further south.




Synopsis: A small transport pilot encountered severe turbulence and descended up to 3;000 feet from his assigned altitude while flying south of and parallel to a line of Midwestern thunderstorms.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DCA.Airport, VA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: First day on IOE. Third leg. Vectors to a course to visually pick up the river for the River Visual 19. Just after those instructions we were asked to switch to the LDA Z. After passing the FAF and descending to the MDA we heard an 'Obstacle' aural warning. At this time we broke out of the clouds (unadvertised momentary layer). Checkairmen took controls and performed the GPWS escape maneuver. Momentary stick shaker. Now in visual conditions; obstacle/airport in sight we elected to land with no further incidents.Upon review; we did not catch an intermediate step down fix that was not loaded into the FMS causing us to descend below altitude.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain flying the DCA LDA Z Runway 19 on IOE; apparently descended below the WEVPU fix altitude and momentarily responded to the EGPWS 'OBSTACLE' alert before becoming VMC and landing.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SGF.Airport, MO
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C SGF
ATC / advisory: Tower SGF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working Local Control and Approach APREQed a VOR Runway 2 approach. I knew that this approach had had an issue several days earlier that Flight Check had checked and deemed to be within tolerance. I was watching the aircraft on the approach and at approximately a five mile final; the aircraft veered west of course and was no longer on the approach. I knew the aircraft was below the clouds doing this approach as practice IFR. I informed the pilot that he was west of course and he advised that he was correcting. I knew that the approach had been flight tested the day before and deemed appropriate but I still wanted to pay extra close attention to the approach. This approach; VOR Runway 2; into SGF has an issue. Aircraft veer west of course even though the approach should keep aircraft on the east side of the runway for the duration. This approach needs to be further investigated immediately! The approach has already locally been deemed unusable until further action is taken. I would recommend all controllers watch aircraft courses.




Synopsis: SGF Controller voiced concern regarding the accuracy of the VOR Runway 2 Approach Procedures; noting that even after a Flight Check aircraft appeared to veer West of the final approach course.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach encountered Trailing Edge Flap malfunction. Complied with QRH and landed uneventfully Flaps 20. Normal Taxi in. [About a month later]; same scenario; same airport; same ship. This time we were unable to drive Flaps down via the alternate [procedure]. An uneventful Flap 1 landing was executed. [Another month later]; same scenario as [previous]. An uneventful Flap 1 landing was made. In the last two incidents the Alternate Flap Power circuit breaker was discovered popped.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported he experienced trailing edge flap malfunctions on the same aircraft on three different flights about a month apart from each other.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Towing
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I was towing Aircraft X from widebody spot XX to gate XX; I was approaching spot XX and the brake rider said 'Stop; stop right here.' The tower was late in telling us to hold at spot XX; thus causing me to push the brakes too hard bouncing the push out and tossing us about the cabin.The other Ground Service Technician that was in the push out with me; switched seats and finished towing the aircraft to the gate. I sustained facial injuries; a hand injury as well as cuts to my left leg and right knee. While towing to the gate the brake rider notified a CSM (Customer Service Manager).Better communication and being more careful while driving a vehicle with air brakes.




Synopsis: Ground Service Technician reported sustaining injuries after abruptly braking a tug while towing an aircraft to the gate.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
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: Fan
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 32;000 ft. I observed the right engine VIB (Vibration) gauge spike from .2 to 1.4 trending toward the yellow caution range along with an accompanying vibration in the floorboard. The First Officer and I reviewed the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) for abnormal engine fan VIB indication and realized that if such conditions worsened that an intentional engine shut down may be needed. I contacted the flight attendants and asked them if they noticed anything different in the cabin and the aft Flight Attendant said it was exceedingly loud with a stronger than usual vibration coming from the right side of the aircraft. I notified Center Control that we would request Runway XX as a straight in approach due to an abnormal engine indication but that both engines were still producing power and no [priority handling] was needed. Upon arrival in ZZZ; we were met with ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting) equipment and personnel and taxied to the gate without incident.




Synopsis: CRJ Captain reported excessive engine vibration in cruise that resulted in a precautionary landing.
Date: 201907
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I have just been informed by [Company] that during an internal AIMS audit; the company discovered that the crew scheduling rule in the AIMS system which impacts three FAA regulations was inadvertently turned off. As a result; I may have exceeded: 14 CFR 121.471(a) resulting in flying in excess of 30 hours in a 7 day period. Due to the complexity of our operations throughout the world; I suggest keeping all FAR 121; 117; domestic and international operations separate from each other and flown by a set of dedicated crew members. This allows us to better monitor our own schedules and help prevent this kind of error in the future.




Synopsis: Captain reported notification by company audit department of FAR Flight Time violation due to company monitoring system error.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Changed pattern from Runway 2 to Runway 14; we were already on base by then for Runway 14. Approach setup was fine; we entered the flare fine; landed and then immediately heard the left tire screeching. The student had locked up the left brake. I tried taking controls and pushing on the right rudder; however he was overpowering me. So we ended up skidding off the runway to the left. We did a ground loop and came to a stop. The prop luckily never struck the ground; and the tires were still inflated by the end of it. I quickly shut down the aircraft and shut off the fuel following. Tower asked if we needed assistance; and I said yes.Something that can be done to prevent this is to really make sure to look at your student's setup getting into the plane; ensure that the student has his/her seat adjusted properly and cannot lock his/her leg into place. We were also given strictly a touch and go; so in our case we should have just stuck with a 'Go around'; or 'Low approach'. Something that I can do better as an instructor is to really harp on brakes; and proper foot placement on the rudder. I already use 'Heels on the deck' for takeoff; and can also use it again on landing.




Synopsis: PA-28 instructor pilot reported the student lost directional control on the landing roll after locking up the left brake.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was working the R-side on Sector XX. I had an Air Carrier X and Air Carrier Y both on frequency at the same time; both landing at LAS. I was not aware of the similar sounding call signs. I gave Air Carrier X a decent clearance to cross an intersection at FL160 250 KTS. Air Carrier Y took the clearance and began descending from FL310. I did not catch this until I saw Air Carrier Y about a mile inside my airspace descending out of FL298. I instructed Air Carrier Y to maintain FL290 and reissued the descent clearance to Air Carrier X. I believe Air Carrier Y began its descent while he was still in another centers airspace.I recommend that the airlines adjust their call signs so they are not so similar or space out these flights numbers so that they are not in the same area at the same time.




Synopsis: Similar sounding call signs caused the wrong aircraft to begin a descent in another Centers airspace.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cabin Lighting
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Nearing top of descent; the ISFD quit and displayed OUT OF ORDER. Descent began and passing approx 12;000 feet; received call from cabin that they smelled smoke. The smell was of a burning smell; similar to burned popcorn. It was prevalent in rows 10-14. I confirmed that no smoke was actually present just the smell.  We adjusted the packs cooler and the smell dissipated. We had [Runway] XXL in the FMS and received a change to [Runway] XXC. While trying to load [Runway] XXC into the box we found that both FMSs would only show [Runway] XXL and no other approaches would populate on the arrival page. We then received another call from the cabin reporting that the burning smell was back but no smoke present. With the ISFD having quit; the FMS anomaly suddenly present; and more burning smell present; began to think we had a melt down of some sort going on in the E & E compartment. [Advised ATC] stating we wanted [Runway] XXL since we couldn't as yet make out the field through the scattered clouds below us and couldn't select any other approach. Fire trucks gave us a once over and followed us to the gate. Kept the flaps at 40 just in case an evac was necessary if smoke began to fill the cabin. Burning smell persisted on the ground to the gate but no smoke was present. Had pulled the Smoke; Fire; Fumes Checklist out but I decided the most prudent and efficient act was to land ASAP and elected not to execute this checklist while on an accelerated final approach with no smoke present in the cabin. No FA or passenger needed medical attention. We never smelled smoke or a burning smell in the cockpit.Post flight maintenance found a bad light ballast in the vicinity of rows 10-13.  The ISFD failure and FMS anomaly were apparently unrelated but had occurred rather simultaneously.With more time; say if we'd been at altitude; the Smoke; Fire; Fumes checklist could have isolated the problem and may not have led to the interpretation of a more serious situation possibly developing.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a cockpit display failure with an unrelated simultaneous cabin lighting ballast failure resulting in a precautionary landing due to suspected electrical fire.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GFK.Airport, ND
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D GFK
ATC / advisory: Tower GFK
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After returning to Grand Forks from a cross country flight; I requested a long landing to allow my student to practice a soft field landing. ATC put us on extended downwind to allow the aircraft behind us to land first; and then cleared us for 17R behind them. While on approximately a one mile final for 17R the ADS-B indicated a traffic alert directly behind us; at very close proximity and at the same altitude. I initially thought this was a false return of our own aircraft. I turned around to visually verify the traffic warning and saw another C172 through the rear window that appeared very close and on glide path; which appeared to be overtaking us. Due to the close proximity of the aircraft; I took the flight controls from my student and aborted the approach by executing a climbing right turn to a heading of west. I immediately informed ATC of my deviation. Upon receiving my transmission; ATC spaced us in front of another aircraft on downwind; which in my opinion never caused any danger of an additional traffic situation; as we had the aircraft in sight shortly after the turn. ATC informed us that overtaking aircraft had been doing a low approach; which seemed to fit with what I had seen out the window. From what I recall hearing on the radio; the other aircraft (also a FBO aircraft) was doing an instrument approach to terminate in a missed approach. The other aircraft; which would have been following FBO procedures as well; would have been flying at 90 KTS on the approach; while we were on a VFR final approach at 63 KTS with full flaps. I was not able to determine if the other aircraft had us in sight; but at that moment; I felt that the other aircraft was in danger of overtaking us and colliding with our aircraft. I did not feel that there was sufficient time available to query ATC about the aircraft; so I elected to take evasive action to prevent what I thought was an imminent collision.




Synopsis: C172 instructor with student is advised of traffic close behind during approach by ADS-B and elects to go around. The traffic behind had been cleared for a low approach and apparently had the reporter in sight.