elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; TFR ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying to observe a friend's home after a wildfire.  I was using my EFB for navigation and was very aware of the presence of multiple TFRs.  According to my visual landmarks and the perimeter of the TFR according my EFB; I was clearly outside of the TFR perimeter as it paralleled the coast and was slightly inland.  I was contacted by another pilot that he thought I may have violated a TFR. I assured him I was very careful using my EFB and very identifiable landmarks.  His comment was the the TFR had expanded and encompassed my course of flight.At XM:00 pm the evening of my flight when I opened my EFB; the TFR had indeed expanded.  Even though the active time was listed as XA:00; my EFB updated nearly 12 hours later.I am Respectful of the firefighting TFRs and am grateful that the fire was nearly out and there were no fire fighting aircraft in the vicinity. I will follow up with my EFB vendor to report this incident.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a possible entry into a fire related TFR which was not depicted in his EFB pre-flight; but was noted post flight as the EFB updated.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FAT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C FAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON FAT
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Departed FAT; flew runway heading and cleared to 10;000 feet on departure. We were given direct to FRAME by departure and once established direct and climbing through 7;000 feet we simultaneously received a traffic call from ATC and an resolution advisory (RA) to descend. I began to comply with the RA and gained visual contact with a white and red Cessna.  As soon as we were established in a descending maneuver the Cessna began a right turn towards our aircraft and the TCAS gave us an RA to climb. I arrested the descent and began to climb.  I could see visually that the climb and current heading would cause us to [hit] the Cessna and made a right turn off course in addition to the climb to avoid a collision. The aircraft passed a few hundred feet off our left side and we received the 'clear of conflict' from TCAS. Captain advised ATC of the deviation and we were instructed to turn back direct to FRAME and given a frequency change.   ATC was extremely late advising us of conflicting traffic. In fact the traffic call was almost simultaneous with the RA.  It appeared visually to me that the descending maneuver would have worked to keep us clear but as soon as the Cessna turned towards us and the TCAS reversed its command to a climb it appeared to put us back on a collision course with the Cessna forcing a turn to the right in addition to the climb to avoid a collision.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information].


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported an NMAC with a Cessna during departure from FAT.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken

Narrative: We were on a left downwind to RWY 22 … about abeam GREKO at 4;000 MSL. The First Officer and Jumpseater reported seeing a yellow and white drone; about 2 feet square; pass off the right side of the aircraft at approximately 3;900 MSL. We reported it to Approach Control.




Synopsis: Flight crew observed a drone pass off the right side of the airplane during approach to landing.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Booster Pump
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft had sat on the ramp for about 5 days; where the last 3 days included some rain. During pre-flight; I noticed a small fuel stain on the bottom of the left engine firewall (inboard side of nacelle). I also noted that the left main tank was dripping from the the overflow vent; having just been filled.I taxied to the runway and completed the engine run-up checks at the runway hold short line. When pulling the throttles back to idle after the run-up I heard a sound that was later determined to be fuel vapor igniting. At the time I didn't know what it was. My passenger informed me that the left wall panel had been blown out towards his leg and we saw smoke from the vent on the center wing spar cover.At this point I notified the Tower of the smoke. Immediately after that I saw flames through the spar cover openings and [advised] the tower. I requested fire trucks; and communicated souls; fuel on-board; and the intent to evacuate. I shut down all fuel and electrical systems. As I exited the aircraft; the flame had stopped. I believe that shutting the engines down and turning off the fuel selectors stopped the fuel from feeding the fire.I informed emergency personnel that I believed the flames were out after I turned everything off. They verified that the fire was out and we were towed back to the ramp and the aircraft was put into maintenance to determine the issue.I believe that fuel leaked from the left side of the aircraft; I don't know where from. This fuel must have been ignited during the run-up with hot engines.Finding and fixing fuel leaks might have helped prevent this situation.

Callback: The reporter indicated that during maintenance follow up; it was concluded that a fuel leak existed in the engine driven fuel pump.



Synopsis: The pilot of a PA31 observed smoke and a small fire during run-up. An aircraft shutdown and evacuation were executed. A fuel leak from an engine driven fuel pump is suspected.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Air Carrier X was southbound on J53 at FL380. Air Carrier Y; FL390; was northeast bound on a vector to meet the SOP restriction for aircraft landing Pittsburgh. Off the vector; Air Carrier Y was descended to FL340 to miss two (point outs) aircraft from Indy Center at FL370 eastbound. Air Carrier Y had to be descended quickly not to only miss the two aircraft at FL370; but to try and make the SOP restrictions. Obviously separation is paramount and our job to ensure. That being said; the fact that there is no LOA with Washington Center and Atlanta Center for Pittsburgh landers is dangerous and unreasonable. As of now; Atlanta can hand off an aircraft at FL410; landing Pittsburgh; and we have about 40 miles to get the aircraft out of FL310 descending to FL290 to meet our restriction. This can be an issue with no other traffic; but throw in other traffic southwest bound; east bound; southeast bound from Washington; Indy and Atlanta it can create potential for error. There is an LOA with other Centers for aircraft landing just as far away as Pittsburgh if not further. It would be a simple and painless correction for everybody. Pittsburgh aircraft cross the Atlanta/Washington Center boundary at or below FL350 will be extremely helpful and safe.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller reported that existing procedures make it very difficult to handle PIT arrivals transferred at high altitudes; alleging that a procedural fix would not be difficult.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Blade
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prop strike occurred due to flare too high due to distractions (see below); went to second bounce before throttle up to go around. This was when the prop strike occurred. Second circuit successful; with flyby Tower at 500 FT to check undercarriage and wheels. Third circuit successful landing. Held on runway to check undercarriage by fire department. Distractions: pilot's microphone switch jammed so had to use co-pilot's switch. Wind was on starboard quarter on landing; it had been a crosswind about 160 to 180 at about 12/14 KTS on left downwind to Runway 08. On final wind switched to 260 at about 6 to 8 but varying. I think there was a gust as I came in to flare. As a result I felt too fast with full flaps on final approach. Contributing factor was the airport was very busy at the time and I was hurrying to make space for others to takeoff/land. By the way there was no pressure from the Tower at all; that was purely my self imposed pressure; they gave me full description of wind conditions and were accurate and helpful throughout. In fact I compliment the Tower and emergency staff for their rapid and very professional response to the situation. After my bounce and communication that I was going around they asked immediately if I needed assistance; notified the emergency service and cleared the airspace for my flyby and subsequent landing. I do not know what might be better done to avoid such a situation except perhaps more emphasis in training on landing in unusual wind conditions. This was my first landing with a tail/cross wind.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reports a double bounce landing and go around resulting in a propeller strike. A safe landing ensues.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Taxing out for departure to Runway 28L at SFO; after [we were] being advised to expect 28L. I requested a weight and balance uplink for 28L. Holding short number 1; SFO Tower clears us to cross 28L for 28R. I advise that we were told to expect 28L for departure and that we did not have the numbers for 28R. Local then tells us he can not give 28L for traffic and to continue holding short of 28L. Advise when you have your numbers for 28R. I then send another a weight and balance request for 28R. We receive the data and I load the FMC and reselect the new departure runway and departure per our Flight Manual procedures. Once the Captain and I verified everything was in order for 28R I advised Tower we had our numbers for 28R and were ready for departure. SFO Tower then comes back with a line up and wait clearance for 28L. I then ask again; you just told us 28R; while I was querying the Tower the Captain began to cross the hold short line as instructed by ATC. Tower then replies to my query you need to have numbers for both runways; that's how we do it here. Now I am scrambling to reload the 28L data in the FMC and re-confirm the departure runway and SID. SFO Tower then issues a quick hold short instruction but the nose was across the line already as previously instructed. Then Local Controller sees this and re-issues a line up and wait clearance. As I'm finishing up the verification Tower issues an immediate takeoff clearance for 28L. Checklists complete; runway verification callout complete and the Captain is now calling for auto throttles as we accelerate for takeoff. While rolling on 28L I hear the Tower command a go around for the aircraft on final. We followed our established procedures and ATC kept changing the plan and trying to rush us. Had we not followed our procedures I believe many other errors could have happened.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer is told to expect Runway 28L at SFO and FMC and weight and balance information are loaded for Runway 28L. Runway 28R is assigned and the crew advises that they cannot accept Runway 28R without reprogramming and are told to hold short and advise when ready. When the crew announces ready the Tower instructs to line up and wait Runway 28L which the crew is again not ready for and results in a takeoff delay and a go around for an aircraft on approach.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had just taken a number of sectors combined. I began to receive a handoff from Approach on a B1900. I had good RADAR on the track and; via automated means; took RADAR contact on the B1900. The B1900 checked on climbing to 12;000; requesting FL200. They also stated that they were 'when able' direct [the] VOR. I assumed that meant they were on a vector until able to receive [the VOR]; although I had not been given that information from Approach. I then climbed the B1900 to FL200. Shortly thereafter (within 1 minute); I lost RADAR on the B1900 and noticed that I had completely lost both beacon and search capabilities of the TAD RADAR. I notified the supervisor of the problem. My concern was that the B1900 was now on a heading; until receiving [the] VOR; non-RADAR; climbing into high terrain with MIA's (Minimum IFR Altitudes) as high as 16;300 MSL. I had no way of knowing if their climb rate would suffice to top the MIA's; given that I had completely lost the RADAR site. I asked the B1900 for their altitude leaving; radial and DME off of [another] VOR. They stated that they were about on the [other VOR] 180 radial at 7 miles leaving 11;800 MSL. Given that information; I knew they were still well clear of the mountainous terrain; but also knew that I needed to get them established on a [victor airway] (which was about 5 NM east of their position; in an area of lower MIA's). I knew I had to make a decision quickly; given that they were non-RADAR; not on good non-RADAR routing; and also flying towards high terrain. I did not think of using a non-RADAR arc at the time; I just knew I had to get them moving eastbound; away from the mountains; toward the victor airway. As they were leaving about 12;000 MSL; I assigned the B1900 a vector (non-RADAR; which I know is wrong) knowing that this vector would keep them above MIA's and move them away from high terrain; while also joining them to a victor airway. The B1900 was then assigned to join [the victor airway] to [the] VOR at 17;000 MSL. I should have thought to use a DME arc in this case. Once I receive a DME from [the other VOR]; I could have had the B1900 intercept an arc to join [the victor airway].




Synopsis: ZDV Controller described an unsafe event when issuing a 'vector' in a non-RADAR environment; the reporter acknowedging his unfamilarity with non-RADAR procedures.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight [advised ATC] going into ZZZ due to odor in the cockpit. I was informed the day after the event occurred. I am not aware of what caused the event.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported being made aware of fume event on flight he dispatched resulted in an uneventful landing.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We flew uneventfully from [our departure airport]. It had been raining at [our departure airport] while the airplane was parked outside overnight. Also; the initial climb was flown in light rain and we used the weather radar to avoid weather returns. Tops were around 30;000 FT and we cruised in clear skies at 40;000 FT. Upon post-flight inspection I noticed an area of frost (5 inches x 4 inches forming under the fuselage. The area was located on the bottom of the tail section; beginning roughly 24 inches after the 'tail stand' placard (just aft of the rear-most inspection panel). There was a definite temperature difference to the touch between the affected area and the surrounding areas of the aircraft skin. After landing the airplane was dry; except for that area. I suspected a block of ice had formed inside the tailcone and it was slowly melting. The temperature on the ground at the destination airport was 15C. No abnormalities were noted on the flight controls (main flight controls and trim worked normally throughout the flight). I am not sure if ice forming in that area has the potential to affect the flight controls cables; but I would recommend Cessna to eventually add an additional drain hole or mast.




Synopsis: During post flight inspection a CE-560XLS Captain discovered an area of frost on the bottom of the tail cone which lead him to believe that ice had formed inside of the tailcone during flight after the aircraft was exposed to rain the previous night.
Date: 202007
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Manual safety demo was performed. Announcements regarding safety demo changes were not made. Customers were not advised to remove face covering and masks for decompression and it was not explained that the life vest and the oxygen masks were not demonstrated.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that announcements regarding the safety demonstration changes were not made and that passengers were not advised to remove face coverings and masks in the event of decompression.