elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower HCF
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A Sky Hawk had landed on Runway 4R and was clearing at Taxiway F. A Caravan was on right traffic from the Freeway 2 arrival for Runway 4L on a short approach. The Caravan was on a dog-leg and almost directly over the HNL VORTAC when the ASDE-X alarmed for OCCUPIED Runway 4R. The ASDE-X indicated his target in conflict with the Sky Hawk; who was observed clear of the runway edge line and moving toward Taxiway C. Before I was able to key up on frequency; the Caravan cleared the Runway 4R final and the hold bars immediately illuminated on Runway 4L. No go-around was issued. ASDE-X nuisance alarm forms and an MOR was submitted by FLM. This has been a re-occurrence with ASDE-X safety logic which is responding as designed. However; because of the flexibility of the use of the parallels with our small aircraft and the helicopter operations very unique to this airport; this continues to be a problem. Our OS offered a solution to issue a point to turn base leg; i.e.; turn a one mile final. I don't know if our student pilots can navigate an ILS/DME or visualize a point in space. This is viable; however; in order to expedite traffic for efficiency or for LAHSO/No LAHSO operations; or to minimize conflictions with the diverse types of aircraft. Prior to ASDE-X; we did not have these issues. Another other possible solution is to lengthen Runway 4L and make it even with Runway 4R.




Synopsis: HCF Tower ASDE-X nuisance 'false' alarms are recurring. A number of recent suggestions provided at the facility level that might provide some relief are provided.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While [we were] in New York Center airspace FL340 50 north northeast of MRB VOR. We were on a direct course to PECK then LIT. I requested a deviation of up to 10 degrees to the right or north due to weather ahead. ATC said denied and we stated again that we needed it for weather 40 miles ahead and we may only need 5 degrees. This time the Controller came back accusing us of wanting a more direct route (we were already on a direct route to LIT via PECK) I stated again it was for weather. Then he came back and said turn direct MRD then LIT. That route took us about 30 degrees left; right through the overhang we trying to avoid so I stated that we couldn't accept that clearance. Then the Controller said thirty other aircraft were over MRD with no problems. I then declared an emergency to stay on the route we were first on direct PECK then LIT. The Controller gave us a number to call but when he handed us off to INDY Center he said disregard the call. I felt I had declared an emergency so I should file this report.




Synopsis: Air Carrier with ZNY was denied a weather deviation resulting in an emergency declaration to avoid build ups.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When cleared to taxi into position and hold Runway 25R we received a #2 engine fire indication. We complied with the QRH including firing a fire bottle. We also called for CFR as an added precaution. The #2 engine fire system had an MEL for LOOP B INOP and the switch was in the proper position locking out LOOP B per MEL. As a result there was only had one operable loop on that engine. After the bottle was dispensed and the FIRE light extinguished we tested the FIRE DETECTION SYSTEM and it tested OK for all engines with the exception of the locked out loop. CFR scanned the engine with a heat signature device of some sort and confirmed there was no fire. Several minutes later we received a second fire warning on #2. Fire Indications remained on even with maintenance on board at the gate.




Synopsis: A DC-10 flight crew took appropriate QRH actions when they received a fire warning on the number two engine as they taxied into position for takeoff. The warning was ultimately determined to have been false.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While the First Officer was just beginning the takeoff roll he noticed that the nose wheel steering was not responding to rudder pedal movement. This determination was made at a speed of about 50 KTS. The takeoff was subsequently rejected. After consultation the airplane returned to the gate for maintenance. Maintenance used an MEL to allow the airplane to operate without rudder pedal steering. Returning to the gate was warranted because of required MEL maintenance procedures.




Synopsis: A B737-400 takeoff was rejected at about 50 KTS because the nose wheel steering was found to be inoperative.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the initial climb; right after rotation; [we] started smelling a strange odor in the cockpit. We pointed it out and got back to it after we finished our after takeoff checklist to troubleshoot. At the same time; we notified ATC of the issue that we might be returning back to the field so they gave us a heading that keeps us around the airport. While we were trying to find the electrical burning type odor smell; we called the flight attendant and he also confirmed the that he smells the same electrical burning type odor and he had never smelled such a thing before and neither me and my First Officer did in the past of our career time.We decided to return to the field. Right after we decided to return to the field and started the preparation for it; the smell started to dissipate; so we chose not to notify it to ATC as an emergency to see if it going to go away; and it did. We landed back in our departure Airport and made a maintenance write up about it for company to inspect it the issue. We noticed that there were no caution or master lights while the smell was in the environment neither circuit breakers were pulled.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported they started smelling an electrical burning type odor in the cockpit after takeoff.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Airliner 99
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The ATL inbound was level at 13;000 FT. The VFR aircraft was at 15;500 FT and began an unexpected descent into the inbound. The inbound then responded to an RA and descended to 12;500. I did not call traffic due to the 2;500 FT altitude difference. I do feel the VFR aircraft had veered too close to the ATL inbound stream. I feel the VFR Jump planes should be on the DALAS frequency. Also increased training for the VFR pilots operating in that airspace.


Second narrative: I took a briefing from the Controller at R1 and was informed that I had a jump plane on frequency and I was waiting for him to ask for advisories. It appeared to be level flight at 155. Sector 5 had an arrival at 130 flying underneath the jump plane. The jump plane then descended right on top of the B737. The B737 reported a RA and descended without incident. The jump plane process should be re-evaluated and maybe DALAS Sector should talk to the jump planes or the flight path of the jump planes should be further South/West of the ERLIN corridor.


Synopsis: ZTL Controller described a TCAS RA event between an ATL Air Carrier arrival and a parachute jump aircraft operating near the arrival route; the reporter suggesting the jump aircraft be assigned a different frequency and provided with more awareness training.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
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: Other Fire Extinguishing System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In Cruise approaching the descent phase into ZZZ; the FO inadvertently discharged the forward fire bottle by rotating his sun visor. He immediately pointed out that he did this when the warning chime went off. I canceled the CDC; and we briefly spoke about what happened. I then contacted dispatch and maintenance for a conference call as to what had happened and what our intentions should be. At this point we had started our descent phase into ZZZ. As we were positive about the inadvertent triggering of the fire bottle; we decided that ZZZ would be the landing point; and maintenance would meet us there to deal with the situation. We then advise the ZZZ station as to the situation. We landed in ZZZ without further incident and parked at the gate.At this point we again looked at the sun visors on both the first officers and Captain side. We carefully rotated the shades to close proximity to the overhead panel to see which switches they could actually come in contact with. Obviously; on the first officer side this was the forward fire bottle red guarded switch. Then on the captain side; the sunshade when rotated and upwards comes in contact with the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) deployment red guarding switch. Because these two red guarded switches have the hinges at the upper side (12 o'clock position); the sunshade is capable of lifting the red guards; moving underneath and manipulating the buttons. Both of these guarded switches are protected from rotation but I'm about to buy other non-emergency switches or knobs. We both view this as a situation that could possibly occur again and with greater consequence. I believe both of these red guarded lift to push guards could be inverted so that the hinges were on the 6 o'clock position which would guard them from manipulation by the sunshades.




Synopsis: An A319 flight crew reported the inadvertent discharge of the forward cargo fire bottle. This was due to the rotation of the First Officer's sun visor in such a manner that it triggered the fire bottle discharge switch. The flight crew expressed concern that this event could be repeated.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
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; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff; in our climb; smoke was detected in the cockpit. The smoke was coming from the First Officer's yoke. We also started to have BAT DISCHARGE caution light come on multiple times. Followed appropriate check list and QRH procedures. Decided to go back to the airport. We got clearance to go directly to the airport and got vectors for ILS. All the appropriate procedures and check list were completed before landing; with verification of speeds and weight. After an uneventful landing; we did not need any further assistance; and went to our parking spot.


Second narrative: Advised ATC due to smoke in cockpit. Returned to [departure airport]. QRH was read; approach was briefed and setup. Checklists were followed. Uneventful landing was made under maximum weight. Battery discharge light annunciated several times during the event. First Officer smelled electric burning; then noticed smoke. Caution light annunciation and battery discharge light noticed during normal scan. I should have waited and asked ATC to standby before announcing the aircraft condition. This would have given time for the crew to evaluate all resources and outcomes before making a decision.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported returning to departure airport after experiencing smoke from the First Officer yoke and a battery discharge annunciation.
Date: 202102
Location: CXO.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: UNICOM CXO
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Tower closed; multiple airplanes in pattern using Runway 14 for favorable winds (170 about 15 knots). I was on short final; less than 200 AGL over clearway for runway. Jet lands straight in on Runway 32. No calls were made from the jet on CTAF announcing position or intentions. Jet landed; I added power and went around; overflying the jet. All other airplanes in the pattern were using 124.125 as the CTAF as published. Brief phone conversation with Houston Approach confirmed that the jet landed straight in apparently on an RNAV 32 approach. Jet would have landed with excess of 10 knots tail wind. ASOS was broadcasting at the time.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported performing a go-around on short final due to a business jet landing in the opposite direction following an RNAV approach.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Airspace: Class C AUS
ATC / advisory: TRACON AUS; Tower AUS
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I contacted Approach and was given vector to land on Runway 35R. This was just after sunset. Conditions were dark; but it was not night by legal definition to log night ops. As I approached the airport; AUS had me turn left to a new heading for spacing to accommodate a MD-80 that was landing in front of me. Once the MD-80 was established on the flight path; I was cleared to land number 2 behind the MD-80. Tower advised me to beware of wake turbulence. At this time; to avoid the effects of wake turbulence; I focused on the MD-80 and attempted to visually fly above its approach path. I experienced some light to moderate bumps; perhaps due to wake turbulence or due to other factors. While attempting to fly visually about the landing aircraft's approach path; I allowed my aircraft to fly well below 35R glidepath. When the MD-80 landed; I looked at the PAPI lights and saw they were all red. I immediately applied more power and began a climb to a safer approach altitude. A few moments after I noticed I was dangerously low; the Tower Controller contacted me and advised me I was low; and asked if I had the airport in sight. I confirmed that I had the airport in sight; and resumed my established approach and made a safe landing. No other mention of the incident was made by ATC. In my evaluation; this incident was the result of a 'black hole' approach - there are very few ground references at night approach AUS from the south. Compounding this issue was my fixation on the landing aircraft's approach path rather than on the runway's PAPI lights. Had I focused first on my position relative to the PAPI indicators; then flying above the landing aircraft's approach path; I would not have allowed my aircraft to descend so far below the glideslope.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports getting very low during a night visual approach to AUS while following a MD-80 and attempting to remain above its flight path. The reporter detects low position via the PAPI lights and adds power; followed shortly by a low altitude alert from the Tower.