elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Snow; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was given the SID and cleared to FL150. During the initial climb; I had a Trim Runaway and I tried resetting the autopilot but it happened again. In terms of my GPS issues it was not responding to my inputs. So by me dealing with that and I got behind the aircraft and violated my altitude and heading. On the climb on the departure I believe I had asked ATC for Direct to Destination but I was given a heading instead. On the trim runaway it pitches the nose of the aircraft down; so I had to disconnect the autopilot etc. And long with trying to handle the trim runaway and disconnecting the autopilot and I made the deviations. Also; while being vectored to ZZZ; Center notified me that the weather had dropped there and there were airplanes holding so at that point I decided to go to ZZZ1. However; I was being vectored around a bit; so at that point I decided to land at ZZZ2 as it was right of me about 10 miles. So as to obtain fuel; as I had to take off with minimum fuel as possible in order to meet the climb gradients. My apologies. I should have notified ATC of my Trim issue and GPS issues sooner. This was my first time flying into ZZZ3. In terms of learning from this incident - I should have had another Pilot with me instead of Single Pilot operation into a challenging airport such as ZZZ3.




Synopsis: PC12 pilot reported diverting due to a trim runaway and weather falling below minimums at destination airport.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I'm a student pilot who had a solo flight planned from ZZZ to ZZZ1. I preflighted and proceeded with my run up; I got the ATIS information; contacted Ground and was cleared to taxi to my hold short point of the runway. I noticed my transponder was displaying a transmitter failure message and it asked me to restart it which I did. I also sent a picture of it to my Flight Instructor. After I restarted it; it displayed the VFR code of 1200. My Instructor told me if it happens again I should let him know. I taxied to the hold short line of XX and Runway XX as instructed by Ground. I switched to Tower and relayed my intentions; but I got no response; oddly enough I could hear them talk to other pilots on the frequency. I also noticed that my transponder relayed the transmitter failure message again. I restarted it; and it held for a while but then kept on showing the same message. I then unplugged my headphones; plugged it back on and kept switching from Ground to Tower frequencies but to no avail. I contacted my Instructor and told him what was happening; he contacted Tower and they gave me the light gun signal to taxi onto the runway and exit through the taxiway. I couldn't squawk the radio failure frequency because the transponder kept failing. I taxied back to the hangar and had a couple of instructors waiting for me. While I taxied back to the hangar; the avionics completely shutoff. I was able to taxi back successfully and was taken care of by two of my instructors.




Synopsis: C-150 Student pilot reported electrical failure during taxi for takeoff.
Date: 201812
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Pre-Departure
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: One of our flights out of ZZZZ had to be re-crewed but FAR(s) were broken because the flights were not properly staffed to augmentation. Since ZZZZ is not a hub; the plan of action was to strip other flights departing from ZZZZ to ensure all flights left on time but with minimum staffing. This plan was given approval from the manager on duty. As the pairings were updated the published aircraft staffing guidelines were followed; unfortunately; the guide did not include augmented staffing requirements. FAR(s) were broken but unfortunately at the time the pairings were being updated the system did not alert us that augmented staffing was required.In fact; for [the re-crewed] flight; the system alerted the flight as being overstaffed. Although alerts were shown that there were open positions after checking the staffing guidelines; it appeared as if the alert was false; which happens often with the program. I [have] an example of an alert for [another] flight alerting an open position but it is fully staffed. Alerts are also typically reviewed by shift supervisors and managers. A copy of the staffing guidelines used that night and pairings for the flights that were modified show that there was no alerts saying that augmented staffing was required.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported flights a procedure to augment the staffing was put in place but did not go into action and resulted in FAR violations.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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 C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Visual approach; backed up by RNAV/GPS; 24 into ZZZ. Night time VFR. Cleared for the visual approximately 20 miles away from the field. PF (Pilot Flying) proceeded direct to ZZZZZ; FAF (Final Approach Fix) for the RNAV 24. No FPA (Flight Path Angle) or PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator) present. Shortly after ZZZZZ PF arrested descent; to slow and configure the aircraft. When speed and configuration were appropriate; at approximately 2000 ft AGL a greater than normal descent rate was initiated in order to intercept the visual descent path for the runway. Shortly thereafter; an amber GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) ground proximity message appeared; followed by GPWS pull up message. Due to the familiarity with the approach; and visual confirmation of terrain; PF elected to arrest descent; until warning canceled. A normal approach to landing was completed thereafter.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported initiating a greater than normal descent rate in order to intercept the visual descent path and activating the GPWS warning.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On climbout from IAD; Potomac Departure gave us a climb to 11;000. Then we switched controllers and checked in; and the new controller gave us 'climb and maintain 14;000.' A minute later; we heard the same controller tell another pilot 'traffic at 2:00 climbing to 13;000.' We were seeing an airplane at 10:00 on the TCAS descending toward us. Then the controller told us about traffic at 10:00; 15;000; descending to 13;000. We were trying to get clarification as we climbed out; but there was a lot of confusion between [the other aircraft; the controller]; and us. I was the pilot flying; and I reduced my climb rate to about 200 feet per minute as I went through 12;400. At 13;000; I started to level off; because I could see that we had a conflict. Shortly thereafter; I heard another voice say; 'Aircraft Y; level off; LEVEL OFF.' The aircraft was at 14600 and we had remained at 13000; even though we had been cleared to 14;000. Those pilots were asking for clarification and so did we. Then the second voice told us both that there was training going on; [the controller] had it settled; and handed us off to Center. If I had not leveled off early; we would have been at 14;000 when they got called to level off at 14;600. They were directly above us on a crossing path. That pilot asked about how it happened; because they had been cleared to 'descend via' and they were on the path. Make sure ATC has good training; and good supervisors. This was way too close. If I hadn't seen what was happening; we very likely could have had a midair collision.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an airborne conflict during climbout from IAD airport due to ATC training error.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X [flight] got handed off from ZLC they passed along that they were low fuel. Aircraft X was a flight of 6. With the weather being poor and the visibility being 4 miles an instrument approach is what they were requesting. That being said; their TACAN and ILS were both out of service. The only way they were getting in was a visual to [Runway] XXR. So I vectored the flight behind the [civilian] aircraft coming from the south. Giving them block altitudes above the MVA so they had proper spacing amongst themselves. As I was stepping Aircraft X down they kept wanting lower and lower in order to get the visual approach. I stepped them down to 5000 and they descended to 4800; I gave them an LOA (low altitude alert). Then after fixing that issue I gave them 4500 once they were in the 4500 MVA. Turned them to final and I noticed that they dropped below 4500. So I gave them another LOA and told them to maintain 4500. I asked them numerous times if they had the airport in sight. They said no so I climbed them to 8000 and told them to fly heading 100. Aircraft X flight 2-5 reported the field in sight and at that point I cleared them for the visual. Aircraft X 6 didn't get the airport so I turned him away from the mountains and climbed them. After that I gave him a new squawk code and split Aircraft X 1 and Aircraft X 6 up. After clearing Aircraft X 6 to ZZZ and verifying his altitude I sequenced the two flights to get the visual behind another arrival. When we have airplanes that are low fuel and have no approaches we need to get those approaches fixed. Tech ops or who ever was fixing them need to understand the situation on hand.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported having to break up a flight of 6 fighters to get them to land.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MOB.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E MOB
ATC / advisory: TRACON MOB
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The First Officer was flying and I was pilot not flying. As we were passing 10;500 in the climb we heard a loud bang and saw that the Captain's side windshield had completely shattered. We informed ATC and stopped our climb and slowed down. The First Officer continued to fly the aircraft as I ran the associated QRH. Given that the damage to the windshield was extensive and as we were not sure if it might get worse we decided to air return to our departure airport as the safest option. I declared an emergency and informed ATC of our intentions then briefed the Flight Attendant made a PA to the passengers and informed Dispatch via ACARS. We then set up for the approach and ran the in-range and landing checklists. We also reviewed the overweight landing technique. Since it was the Captain's side windshield that shattered I chose to have the First Officer land the aircraft since he had clear visibility out his windshield and I did not. First Officer McBee made an outstanding landing on centerline; in the touchdown zone at 100 FPM decent on the VSI at touchdown. We taxied to the gate where we deplaned the passengers; worked with Operations to get their bags off and then repositioned the aircraft to allow inbound flights to use the gate. I then contacted Dispatch; Maintenance; and the Chief Pilot's office. After the flight we did a thorough inspection for any sign of bird-strike and found none. I later spoke to the Flight Attendant who said they had heard the windshield shatter in the cabin but the passengers had remained calm throughout.




Synopsis: When the Captain's side window shattered at about 10;500 MSL on the climbout the flight crew of an E-145 opted to return to their departure airport for maintenance.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During approach to Teterboro on the ILS Runway 6 at approximately 2000 feet MSL in VMC just inside VINGS intersection; a large red drone crossed underneath the aircraft from left to right approximately 500-800 feet below. The flight crew barely noticed anything other than a brief flash of color in an area where there should not have been any aircraft and there was no TCAS traffic indicated. Shortly after landing; the flight attendant reported seeing a large red drone pass underneath the left wing; close enough to be able to see the rotors spinning on the drone. The flight attendant was located at Seat 5; mid-cabin on the left side of the aircraft and had a fairly good view of the area to the left and below the aircraft. Without knowing the size of the drone; it would be difficult to estimate the lateral and vertical separation from the target but it is fairly clear the drone was well above the 600 feet AGL limit. Teterboro ground was advised of the encounter during taxi which prompted a follow-up call to the flight crew from New York Approach Control Operations who took a report. Company was notified and an Operational Incident Report was filed. As pilots; we have become quite accustomed to looking for conflicting FULL SIZED aircraft traffic and relying on TCAS to provide an additional layer of awareness and safety. In a large metro area; at relatively low altitude; close in to an airport; it is just not part of the normal traffic scan to be looking BELOW the aircraft unless helicopter traffic has been called or TCAS indicates a potential threat. The new reality is that low altitude drone aircraft are increasingly invading arrival and departure corridors around airports due to proliferation of the devices; lack of awareness or training of the operators; and lax oversight by the FAA that has ALLOWED the proliferation of these threats to aviation safety. Their small size; haphazard flight paths; and unregulated operations make them an extremely difficult threat to identify and mitigate while in flight. Greater vigilance is required by all participants in this issue.




Synopsis: Corporate jet Captain reported a near miss with a UAV on approach to TEB Runway 6 at 2000 ft.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Navion
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A VFR flight plan was active and flight following had been established. I was in conversation with my passenger about the local area and providing an estimated time to our destination; 1.5hrs. My passenger suddenly slumped to the side and became unresponsive. I [advised] Approach and followed their guidance to [the nearest airport]. After shutdown medical personal assisted in transferring my passenger out of the aircraft and began CPR.




Synopsis: Navion pilot reported diverting to the nearest airport after his passenger became unresponsive.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Number 1 Flight Attendant reported an odor in the forward galley; I went back to investigate and inhaled the odor while attempting to identify its origin. After about 20-30 minutes being exposed to the odor; I became light headed; nauseous and developed a sore throat. I assessed my fitness for duty and determined I was not fit to continue.Once the odor was verified by the other crew members; Maintenance was called address the issue but they were not able to smell the same odor all 5 crew members had identified. Due to the disagreement; we remained on board inhaling the fumes/odor which caused my crew and I further discomfort.As soon as the fumes were confirmed; I should have walked off the airplane.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported a fumes event during pre-flight at departure gate resulting in health issues.