elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Captain; who is quite experienced; hypothesized that this scenario may have been caused by the movement of fuel while accelerating and climbingIt is not clear whether this scenario is associated with the FCOM1 Ch. 28 NOTE concerning Fuel entering the center tank from the vent system and causing erroneous center tank quantity indications as high as 300 lbs [over takeoff limit].Weight Restricted departure from ZZZ. When Takeoff Performance Data was received; it was noted that prior to Takeoff; fuel quantity must be less than 9652.The Captain briefed that we would taxi out with both engines and APU on; and requested I coordinate with ATC to taxi to a location where we could burn the necessary fuel prior to takeoff.As directed by ATC; we taxied to hold short of Runway XX; and for the next 25 or so minutes burned fuel at this location. Once within approximately 60 lbs of the target 9650; APU was switched off and Captain directed me to advise ATC that we would soon be ready for departure. The Before Takeoff Checklist was completed and fuel verified above MIN FUEL and; at that moment; just 40 lbs above the 9650 maximum fuel for takeoff.We were subsequently cleared for takeoff; and during the acceleration; it was noted that the total FOB was surprisingly increasing by several hundred pounds; and the center tank quantity was increasing. At the moment of rotation; the FOB showed several hundred pounds more than the 9620 we confirmed prior to accepting Takeoff clearance. During initial climb center tank quantity continued to increase up to approximately 200 lbs.If this scenario was related to the FCOM1 NOTE; it would be educational to include this NOTE in the Fuel System CBT Training as a gentle reminder to all.




Synopsis: C550 First Officer reported a dynamic fuel quantity indication resulting in Maximum Take Off Fuel quantity exceedance.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In flight approximately 40 miles west of an enroute fix; First Officer (FO) saw smoke rising vertically above glare shield directly above the center of his yoke. He checked for a burning smell in the area of the yoke trim switches and map light rheostat. He could not identify the source. Moments later he saw another stream of smoke in the same area. He identified an electrical smoke smell. He noted some exposed wire on a light green wire that powers the map reading light. Though it appeared that the smoke had come from this area; we could not say so conclusively. We contacted flight control; declared an emergency; and diverted into the nearest suitable airport.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported experiencing smoke on the flight deck. Crew diverted to nearby.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMZT.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While conducting a law enforcement mission in the Southern Arizona area; aircraft was unintentionally flown into Mexican airspace. Mission was conducted in close proximity to the International Border; crew was trying to maintain the aircraft away from the border; but in a good position to maintain surveillance while dealing with strong winds aloft. During one of our orbits around the target the aircraft was pushed over the border and into Mexican airspace. Winds aloft over the target location were from the north at 60 KTS. After flying over the border and into Mexican airspace the crew immediately commanded a turn to the north to return to U.S. airspace.




Synopsis: Drone pilot reports drifting into Mexican airspace due to high winds aloft while on a mission along the southwest border.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class A ZTL; Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were opening up multiple sectors to begin normal operations after the midnight shift.  Two fellow controllers and I came back from break. The FLM on position directed that two of us 'go to the [break list] list' while the third opened up the BHM; MXF and MGM sectors.  I was tasked with giving another controller a break.  As I obtained my headset and began asking controllers who wanted a break; the FLM changed his/her mind and advised that I was to open up BHM; MXF and MGM while the original person ( a CIC) was to give her a break. I chose a chair from the corner of the room and wheeled it towards the MGM sector (where the three positions are routinely combined).  Before I sat down; I could hear pilots checking on frequency on the empty sector next to me (MXF).  I immediately turned and advised the area that there was an issue.  The controller working the actual aircraft realized at the same time that her frequencies had been taken away.  I immediately sat down; turned on the appropriate frequencies; brought up limited data blocks and answered pilots who were calling center.  There were approximately five aircraft on frequency at the time.  Three of those aircraft were departing KBHM; checking on climbing to 100 and requesting higher altitudes.  I began working the sector and advised the previous controller to give me an over the shoulder briefing until we could get everything sorted out.This event was caused from a lack of communication from the supervisor. The FLM entered the command to close the sectors and move the frequencies from one position to another without verifying if either controller was prepared to do so.  There was no way for the controller on position to communicate with the traffic he/she was working.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller describes being told to get out another Controller for a break; while another Controller goes and opens a position.  The Controller is then told to go to the new sector and that Controller was opening and that Controller was to give the FLM a break.  While the Controller is moving to open the new position; aircraft are heard on the sectors frequency.  The FLM had already split up the sector and taken the frequencies from the original Controller.
Date: 201604
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B DAL
ATC / advisory: Tower DAL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First Officer was flying a visual approach at night to 31L at DAL.  As we were turning final abeam downtown; we got a Caution Obstacle Warning. The First Officer initiated a go-around and as soon as he did the caution obstacle warning stopped. I had him continue the approach to a landing with no further warnings occurring.  Because it was night; we should have continued the go-around even though the warning had stopped.


Second narrative: We were approaching MYLES from the east and cleared for a visual approach to Runway 31L. We were initially at 3;000; and slowing to 170 knots; and descending to 2;200 about 4 miles out. We configured to gear down; and flaps 30; and I clicked the autopilot off; and turned inside JAKID; in a turning descent.We were roughly on glide path; and centerline rolling wings level; when we got a GPWS caution 'too low obstacle'. I initiated a go-around; and as soon as I pulled up and added power; the caution stopped and light went out. We elected to continue with the approach when we should have performed a go-around.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported they failed to follow SOP after receiving a GPWS obstacle caution while on approach to DAL.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: New METROPLEX procedures in effect. Aircraft X out the BNGOS DTA level at 140. Aircraft Y on the BNGOS1 SID level at 130 filed for 400. Climbed via the SID to FL230. Aircraft are laterally separated; radar picture appears like the old procedure of WINCO/THNDR DTA; aircraft exit Miami Approach laterally separated and remain separated. Aircraft Y turns into the flight path of Aircraft X due to the SID; Aircraft Y is instructed to expedite descent to 130 and given a heading of 020 to diverge. Aircraft X checks on; reports Aircraft Y in sight; and is given a westerly heading to diverge.The aggressive cross-outs of the Metroplex SIDS cause multiple conflicts during high traffic volume or NORDO scenarios. Recommend true parallels out DTAs to ensure lateral separation; and allow controllers to use headings/speeds/altitude to expedite traffic flow.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller reported problems associated with the new metroplex design of a departure that caused a conflict between two aircraft.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Stick shaker on initial climb out of 2000 feet. A/S 220 knots; yellow band 209 knots. Pitch below flight director command bars; clean configuration; bank angle less than 20 degrees. Stall indicators about 2.5 degrees below pitch attitude. Planned Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) 137.0; Final ZFW from Final Weight Manifest 132.6 which we noted was a significant drop off considering passenger count didn't seem to change. Kid count 19. Planned TOGW 177.5; Final TOGW 172.9.During turn on departure in a clean configuration and 20 degrees of bank; got stick shaker for a couple seconds. First Officer reduced pitch and indication went away. Working through the Chief Pilot and load planning; showing 47 bags in aft cargo. On arrival; increased approach speed by an extra 5 knots to account for possible increased weight. Landing normal. Would like an answer as to the actual weight of cargo and bag count.




Synopsis: B737 Crew experienced stick shaker during climb out due to possible incorrect weight data.
Date: 201402
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While in cruise I put on my O2 mask as the Captain was leaving the flight deck. I couldn't exhale from the mask as the diaphragm appeared to be stuck. I held the mask tightly to my face and blew very hard which 'broke open' the diaphragm. I then decided to switch to emergency on the O2 panel but was unable to because there was some type of locking pin that appears non compliant; preventing its removal without a tool as it was jammed against the panel.  Had I actually need emergency oxygen; this could have become a very serious issue. This pin was obviously not the pin that is supposed to be installed.  It concerns me that it is our culture here to 'just get it done' and there was no consideration of whether or not a pilot would actually be able to select emergency O2 in an emergency. Standards should be followed in actions and the type of parts we use. I have sent a picture of the panel to [the Chief Pilot].




Synopsis: MD-83 First Officer discovers his oxygen mask exhale diaphragm is stuck after donning the mask in cruise. A hard blow breaks it loose but it is then discovered that the emergency oxygen switch is pinned in the off position and the pin cannot be removed.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CHO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CHO
ATC / advisory: Tower CHO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At night; cleared for the visual to Runway 3 in CHO we were heading southwest to establish ourselves on the final approach course. Descending from 4;000 to 2;600 we received a GPWS warning; terrain pull up; which was immediately acted upon. Identification [through] GPWS aural warning. Cause [was having a] descent rate [of] 1;000 FPM; while crossing over a ridge in the area.Responding upon the initial GPWS warning; I immediately disconnected the autopilot; added power and climbed; which stopped the warning right away. Suggestions [are] during the brief for the approach we discussed the terrain and that it would be on the opposite side of the approach course that we would be using. With the iPad in 'light' and not 'dark' mode there is no terrain noted on the side of the approach that we used. I double checked this. The approach plan was to be turning onto final between WULDU and SIPME. Delaying the turn to outside of WULDU may have adverted this. However; at night; especially in areas with some terrain; vectors to the final approach course would be a safe action to avoid this in the future.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported executing an evasive maneuver during descent for a night visual approach when the GPWS Terrain Warning activated.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Other Holding Pattern
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Aircraft X] is doing paradrop activities around the airport. This aircraft routinely asks us to vector other aircraft around his position. He also behaves as if when he is there...the airport should be closed; and we shouldn't be able to run approaches or clearances out of the airport. I vectored an IFR aircraft around his position as he requested (against my better judgment) a few minutes before the issue. I called traffic for [Aircraft X] 10 miles east of his position westbound. I called it again when the plane was about 1 mile from his position. He asked me to vector the plane to the North around his position. I told him the plane was VFR and had every right to proceed westbound. [Aircraft X] then advised me he had troops in the air; and that they could be near that position. I gave an immediate turn to 340 heading and got [Aircraft Y] out of the area. [The airport] is [near] a very busy VORTAC that services all the smaller aircraft back and forth from the Los Angeles basin and the Phoenix area. It also serves as a practice approach airport for several training schools in the Phoenix area. I chastised the pilot on frequency and had him call in to management. In my opinion; this pilot was acting in gross negligence in his duties; and endangered many lives. Mine is not the only issue this particular jumper has had in the [this] area.Move this operation to a protected restricted area; or an airport that isn't along a major route.




Synopsis: Los Angeles [ZLA] Center Controller reported of a problem with a skydiving operation. Pilot had requested special separation service in congested airspace.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 4N1.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF 4N1
Aircraft component: Tail Wheel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After a routine approach and normal landing; I was unable to maintain runway centerline using the steerable tailwheel. Aircraft departed the runway to the left and stopped in the adjacent grass. No damage to airplane or property was encountered and there were no injuries.I think the mechanism that allows the tailwheel to free-caster (for towing purposes) had engaged thus making the tailwheel unsteerable. In the future; I plan to thoroughly check this during preflight and again prior to each landing.




Synopsis: The pilot of a tailwheeled aircraft was unable to control the tailwheel steering during landing rollout; resulting in a runway excursion.