elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: TBM 900 / TBM 930
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was given a clearance off of SMO to ZZZ1 as follows: Depart runway heading; climb to 3000 ft; at the LAX 310 radial; turn to heading 265 for vectors to V23 GMN. Upon take off; I experienced an out of trim condition. I turned to heading 265 at R310 off of LAX and experienced a temporary loss of control either before or after I turned off (or it disengaged) the autopilot. The plane entered a steep right turn and loss of altitude. I fought the controls to a stabilized climb on course. During this time; I deviated outside of the acceptable altitude and course limits. When handed off to approach from tower; I broke through the clouds on top and was able to maintain a heading. However; the plane was badly out of trim. I discovered in flight that the auto trim motor was inop. I attempted to move it manually and it would not move. I reset the breaker and that did not resolve the issue. I advised ATC of the issue and diverted to ZZZ2. I shut down and refiled to ZZZ1. On start up the issue did not repeat itself.




Synopsis: TBM-900 pilot reported Auto Trim failure resulting in a diversion. Without maintenance intervention the failure did not repeat on subsequent flight.
Date: 202009
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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 Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After level off at cruise altitude FLXX0 I noticed a small crack in the lower left corner of the Captain's windshield.  Approximately XX minutes later there was a complete failure of the outer layers of the Captain's windshield which caused spiderweb cracking everywhere. We elected to advise ATC and land successfully at nearby ZZZ airport without any further complications and parked at the terminal gate.This aircraft had been parked at ZZZ1 for a number of months. I would surmise that this contributed significantly to this event.Require these aircraft that have been parked for such a long period of time to be test flown first.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported the Captain's windshield cracked in cruise and the flight diverted successfully. Pilot surmised that the plane's lengthy time being parked contributed to the event.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HWD.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground HWD
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This was my first visit to the Hayward Executive Airport (KHWD).I checked the taxi diagrams prior to calling ground. There was no mention on the diagram of the location of the run-up area.I had just fueled up at the self-service fuel station. I obtained taxi clearance from the ground controller to taxi along Alpha and hold short of Runway 28L.I began taxing along Alpha looking for a sign or indication of the run-up area. I didn't see any signs clearly pointing to the run-up area. I continued down the taxiway and stopped on a concrete pad that the looked like a run-up area about 630 feet from the portions of the runway useable for takeoff and about 1;320 feet from the portions of the runway useable for landing.The ground controller indicated that I was on the active runway; at which point I realized that even though I was about 550 feet from the portions of the runway useable for take-off; I had crossed the hold short line; not expecting it to be so far removed from the useable portions of the runway.My lesson learned is to ask people familiar with the airport; such as the administrative staff or FBO personnel to point out to me any details I am lacking from the airport diagram. Also; I learned to not make assumptions about where airport markings might exist; but to watch for them carefully.




Synopsis: A pilot new to the Hayward airport was unable to determine the location of the run-up area and subsequently experienced a runway incursion.
Date: 201908
Aircraft: B767-400 and 400 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Unqualified techs assigned to work ETOPS ref GMM xx-xx-xx Section X Item X.




Synopsis: Technician reported that Company is using unqualified technicians to do ETOPS checks in violation of the GMM.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While enroute to LAS; I attempted to retrieve the ATIS via ACARS approximately 250 NM out. ACARS NO COMM message was displayed and I was forced to wait until I could receive ATIS via VHF radio. Due to the mountainous terrain northwest of LAS; I was unable to receive the ATIS until we were on an early descent; due to a bumpy ride at cruise altitude. At approximately FL250 I was able to receive ATIS on VHF while we were on a descent to FL210. While I was off getting the ATIS; the First Officer (FO); who was Pilot Flying; was inputting the landing runway info in the CDU. As soon as I was back from being off frequency; the FO started the delayed arrival briefing. Earlier in the flight he had reviewed the SUNST 3 fixes on the arrival before we began our initial descent; and all was in check with the SUNST arrival. We now were to review the remainder and the approach and landing. We both then noticed that the aircraft was proceeding directly to the SUNST fix on the arrival; bypassing BTY; MYCAL; FUZZY; TRAGR; and IPUMY. This deviation put us north of the arrival course. I immediately contacted ATC and requested direct to FUZZY in order to get us back on the arrival. As far as I could tell we were about four to five [miles] north of MYCAL when I requested direct to FUZZY. We were given 'direct to FUZZY; cross FUZZY at 16;000 feet 250 knots'; [and] the Controller said that she showed us north off course. I told her that we were aware we had a navigational error and were correcting it at that time. A few minutes later she gave us a number to call when we landed in LAS. The remainder of the arrival and landing were uneventful.Upon landing I called ATC and the gentlemen I talked to asked if I had flown that arrival often lately. He then told me that there have been several of the same deviations lately on the same arrival. The next day I found out that [another flight to LAS on a different day] had the same issue and also filed [a report]. Neither the FO nor I could figure out why; when simply adding the landing runway to the FMC; several of the fixes on the arrival were deleted and the aircraft was proceeding directly to SUNST from approximately the BTY VOR.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported a track deviation occurred when the FMS dropped some waypoints on SUNST arrival into LAS for unknown reasons.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
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 C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Fuel Control Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At about 5000 ft. near ZZZZZ on approach into ZZZ; after an emergency turn back en route to ZZZ1 for dual EEC failures and Display Source indicating on captain's side PFD; we got a traffic call from ATC. I slowed my descent as the target on my screen was getting closer. At that time ATC canceled our approach clearance and turned us right. Seconds later we got a RA to climb so I climbed about 500 ft. to avoid the traffic; which the PM (Pilot Monitoring) saw visually in our climbing turn. Eventually the passing traffic moved behind us and we were re-issued an approach clearance for the visual approach to [Runway] XXL at ZZZ. We landed uneventfully and taxied safely to the gate; whereupon the flight was cancelled due to the engine EEC failures.


Second narrative: At approximately 5;000 ft. MSL; near ZZZZZ on the RNAV Z XXL into ZZZ; received an RA to climb and turn right. PF (Pilot Flying) had noted approaching traffic and ZZZZ1 had just issued a level off and cancellation of our approach clearance; which PNF (Pilot Not Flying) was repeating when RA sounded. PNF gained visual of small aircraft as we were in the turn and estimates RA was successful in avoiding the 500 ft. near midair bubble but would have certainly been such without evasive action. Reported RA to ZZZZ1. Cleared for visual approach and landed with no further event.  Additional Controllers for this airspace. Too congested.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported a TCAS TA and RA on approach to landing after an air turn back caused by a dual EEC failure. The flight crew initiated evasive action and was vectored back to the approach.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BOI.TRACON, ID
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E BOI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Date I was assigned to fly with a PIC that I haven't flown with before.  We were scheduled to fly from ZZZ to BZN.  I have been to both of these airports a few times and I felt comfortable flying to them.  As I haven't had any issues flying to BZN before.   We began our descent and I received the ATIS as early as possible and advised the PIC that Runway 30 was in use.  GPS and Visual.   The PIC discovered that there was no approach to Runway 30.  RNAV (GPS)-A was in the FMS and available.  The PIC built the RNAV (RNP) Runway 30; I believe he did this in error and meant to select RNAV (GPS)-A.   I noticed the PIC spent a considerable amount of 'heads down' time on the FMS.  I don't think he heard ATC ask us to descend from 13;000 to 11;000;   at that point I said to him that I will initiate a descent to 11;000 at 1500 fpm.  The AP and AT was armed and the aircraft began a descent.  I was then asked to build a 5 mile final to Runway 30 which I tried to do but a message came up as 'unknown waypoint'.   I made a few more attempts to correct the situation; but did not have enough time.  We were then instructed to fly to PESRE.  And at that point ATC advised of a low altitude alert and climb to 11;000.  I'm not sure how the autopilot became disconnected.  I was not the pilot flying and I never touched the controls.  I do want to mention that the PIC briefed me to not touch the heading bug.  This was mentioned when we were starting engines in ZZZ.   I also suggested to the PIC that since we were VMC and I could see the airport environment and I made a gesture pointing to the general location.  But I guess during the workload he didn't hear me.  At no time did the GPWS activate.The PIC needs to improve CRM and delegate during high workloads.  I was using the checklist as assigned.




Synopsis: Light transport pilot reported ATC issued a low altitude alert during approach into BZN. Reporter stated the PIC may have programmed an incorrect approach and added that the autopilot became disconnected; but was not sure how that occurred.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Aircraft: P180 Avanti
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 137
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower APA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Piaggio called for taxi from the FBO Ramp and stated he needed a run up. As per APA's orders; I instructed the aircraft to 'Taxi to the North Run Up Area via Alpha' and did not issue a runway to expect for departure as instructed by my ATM and FLM. The aircraft was IFR and taxied into the ramp at A1 and did not pull into the North Run Up area which is in the A1 ramp but it is not marked or charted and I'm done forcing aircraft to move to a small white dashed line painted box area within the A1 ramp that is not charted or marked other than the dashed lines. The aircraft called ready for departure and I informed the aircraft that I was working on their IFR release and did not issue any other instructions because his sequence may change. I received the release from D01 and I then instructed the Piaggio to taxi to Runway 17L via Alpha and the aircraft was not there. As I was calling out to him; he was moving out of the ramp to the Runway 17L hold short bars and calling the Tower. I informed Local Control that he did not receive a runway assignment and taxi instructions and the Local Control informed the pilot. This is an everyday occurrence. We taxi people using confusing phraseology and to an area next to the departure runway and all of the itinerant aircraft thinks they are going to that runway even though they have not received taxi instructions to that runway. We use this phraseology just to get away from not using 'Hold Short' instructions and getting the required read back. I want to be able to use the ramps that I already have available to me. I want to be able to use the .65 and not this confusing APA invented phraseology. Other controllers use excessive phraseology to get the aircraft to comply with the ATM's intentions. We force aircraft to do their run ups in uncontrolled ramps because we have lost huge ramps areas next to Runway 17L and 35R thanks to the ATM. These aircraft are put in danger by doing run ups next to uncontrolled vehicles; pedestrians and debris. STOP THIS PROCEDURE! GIVE US OUR RAMPS BACK! USE HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS AND GET THE REQUIRED READBACKS!!!!!




Synopsis: APA Controller expressed concern regarding the locally mandated taxi procedure that allegedly is not in compliance with ATC national requirements and confuses pilots.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given a service check with some other tasks on the aircraft. We had to change the #1 brake and a nose tire. When we were ready for that; we started gathering all the equipment and Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) and Illustrated Parts Catalogue (IPC) references; and this wrong brake assembly (for aircraft 737-700) was among the others for 737-800; and we happened to pick this wrong one. During this brake change and the other assignments we both failed to double check the part number (p/n) of this brake with our documents on hand. We proceeded with the brake change and since they are very much alike; we never suspected anything wrong. At the time of signing documents; since my partner didn't have a release for the aircraft in work; I signed all documents. The following night; I was informed of the mistake that we made. The brake was replaced at another station with the correct one. I feel very; very sorry for this mistake; it's something that has never happened to me before. I try always to be careful with all work. I'm so sorry for this mistake.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician is informed after the fact that he and a helper installed a B737-700 brake on a B737-800 and signed it off. The part number was not correct and was detected after the aircraft had been released for flight.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORF.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D PHF
ATC / advisory: TRACON ORF
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Departed PHF & just finished climb to 5;000 feet over water; went to lean mixture & engine started running rough then lost power. Was a hot hazy day with ground temps above 90F; advised ATC; (note ATC was amazing in helping); while setting up a glide engine got partial power then slowly starting to develop full power. After landing & having a local mechanic check it out. It was determined it was carb ice. In the short time I was on the ground 5 pilots in the area stopped by & said they have experienced similar situations in that exact area. It seems that on hot hazy humid days over that water there is a greater reoccurrence of carb ice & it should be a warning or pilots should be made more aware this is an area of high carb ice.Also after analyzing the engine analyzer after getting home; the number 2 cylinder went cold during mixture leaning & was an additional cause of power loss.  This is a brand new engine with just over 200 hours. It's a Penn Yann 180 HP conversion; the plane is meticulously maintained & looked after. 200 hour engine should not be having a sticky valve.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported experiencing a power loss during leaning at 5;000 feet on a hot humid day. As the aircraft descends power increases and the reporter is able to land safely. Carb ice is determined to be the likely cause.
Date: 202201
Location: MHT.Airport, NH
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C MHT
ATC / advisory: TRACON MHT
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On arrival into MHT; Captain and I received a 1800 FT radio altimeter indication at 5000 FT.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported anomalous radio altimeter readings on descent into MHT airport.