elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: PC-12
Reporter organization: Other Flight School
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After taking off out of ZZZ; we changed back over to center after executing the published missed approach; as directed. When we switched over; center immediately called us to advise us of a PC-12 that was trying to get into ZZZ. Giving that we were in their way; I'm sure they were frustrated to be holding. Center asked if we could change plans and hold north. With a day two instrument student; I decided it would be best to just simply get our clearance to the next airport; being ZZZ1. The controller gave us a direct clearance and to maintain 4;000 ft. When activated; we began our turn and the student and I both spotted a multi engine climbing towards us. At this point we were at the same altitude with no separation; and the traffic was not reported to us before the amended clearance. With this; I told the student to climb; and climb fast. We climbed out of clearance 300 ft.; and provided ourselves the separation we needed not to collide with the multi-engine. This decision was made in the interest of safety and traffic avoidance. Even with us climbing out of clearance; we roughly only had 400-600 ft. of clearance between us. After continuing on to ZZZ1; we were told 'possible pilot deviation' and to copy down a number. Once landed at ZZZ2; I called; and [name] apologized for what happened and after two supervisors reviewing the radar and audio; he believed we made the best decision; assuring us he was on our side; and told me he was happy we were safe. He also added that the reason the number was given; was for quality control of his center.




Synopsis: PA-28 Instructor reported an NMAC event while complying with ATC departure instruction.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HPN.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There were several VFR aircraft receiving flight following in the vicinity of HPN. Repeatedly; New York Approach vectored us in very close proximity of aircraft at VFR altitudes (300-500 FT altitude differentials). Since we were in and out of IMC; it was very difficult to acquire the traffic visually. At one point; Approach issued us instructions to fly a heading directly towards traffic; which was depicted as being only 300 FT above our altitude on our TCAS display. I immediately notified ATC that this heading would put us in direct conflict with that traffic. The Approach Controller appeared unimpressed and curtly replied that the VFR traffic was under their control and reissued the same instruction. Later; the same Controller gave us a heading to join the localizer to ILS Runway 16 at 3;000 FT and an approach clearance once established. There was traffic at approximately 3;300 FT depicted on our TCAS at approximately our 12 o'clock position; which resulted in an amber TA. While we attempted to visually acquire the traffic; the TCAS generated a red DESCEND RA; which we immediately complied with. I notified ATC of our RA compliance. The Controller appeared unconcerned. After the completion of the RA procedure; we were able to continue visually to the airport. Cause; 300 FT of vertical separation between aircraft is unacceptable; especially between piston and jet aircraft in marginal VFR conditions. The Air Traffic Controller should have acknowledged our earlier concerns about our separation from slower VFR traffic and provided us with more conservative vectors; etc. There is terrain in the vicinity of HPN and the MSA in the quadrant where the TCAS RA occurred was 2;900 FT (south southwest of FARAN). The TCAS DESCEND RA could have easily switched to an EGPWS TERRAIN escape maneuver.




Synopsis: Air Carrier inbound to HPN talking with N90 voiced concern regarding the ATC handling with regard to separation from VFR traffic; especially considering the marginal weather conditions.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Declared emergency to land due to low tire pressure #8 tire.




Synopsis: B747-400 Relief First Officer reported declaring an emergency and subsequent landing to deal with a low tire pressure indication in flight.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SLC.Tower, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working Local East; TRACON called the SUP and coordinated an east downwind for Aircraft X. It is uncommon to do it because the Aircraft X is usually IFR and pretty high which this one was. The Aircraft X checked on at around 9-10K MSL. I had traffic at 055 and I think 060 north and south over I15 which is between the Aircraft X and the airport. I had to stop the descent of Aircraft X take him over the traffic at 060 and then clear him to land. Well then TRACON put a guy [Aircraft Y] in the final to 35 and one on final to 34R. Now we have an inbound from the east who has to stay high to avoid traffic and miss an aircraft on final to a runway that is before the one he is supposed to land on. TRACON called at the last minute and said hey we moved that guy over meaning the Aircraft Y on 35 and that they had moved him to 34R. Too late at that point; the Aircraft X had stayed too high [because] he didn't see the traffic and there was no way to get him down and avoid the traffic on the final and over the freeway. I had already been forced to route Aircraft X north over the freeway and put him back in a downwind to descend. I'm sure because Aircraft X was IFR and below the MVA that I was wrong although I don't know what else I could have done. Normally when we use the over the top procedure which is a procedure we use that has an east downwind TRACON is not allowed to use the final to 35 for this exact reason. I think the restriction should be any time they coordinate an east downwind they can't assign 35 to others just like they can't in over the top.




Synopsis: SLC Controller reported aircraft below MVA due to a local traffic procedure and aircraft conflict.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: DJI Mavic 3
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: TFR ZZZ
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: Other post-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Got prior authorization through the Aloft App. Confirmed no TFR on B4Ufly app. Flight started at XA:45am. TFR went into effect at XB:00am. I landed at XB:24am and unknowingly violated the TFR as flight was in progress when TFR went into effect. I checked two official sources and the DJI geofence did not notify when a TFR went up.I made every attempt to fly legally. There were no active fire operations; no active air operations and the airspace was clear of all aircraft. Upon realization; I opted to self report.

Callback: Reporter stated they looked at B4UFLY and the DJI app prior to launch to check for TFRs and NOTAMs. There were none showing at the time of launch nor planned in the several hours after the launch. Several hours after landing the UAS pilot learned of the TFR. The UAS pilot spoke with the FAA and learned the TFR was issued directly form a nearby ATC Tower and this is why it wasn't posted prior to becoming active.



Synopsis: UAS pilot reported they unknowingly flew their UAS into a TFR. Reporter stated there were no TFRs prior to launch and the TFR became active during the flight.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Work Refused; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received NOTOC from ground crew. Ramper said he initiated it because he was uncomfortable with a shipment of dry ice he was loading onto aircraft. He was not sure of the total amount we could carry. After checking the FOM; it showed we could haul that much; I called Dispatch to go through and make sure we are not overlooking something. While on hold with Duty Pilot; I asked ramper how it was packaged; he replied 1 container; which exceeded the per package amount. Called back to Dispatch; they had also just finished talking with ops and were given same information. We both agreed it could not be hauled. Had hazmat removed from aircraft.Cause was unknown; but want to say: Ground crew did a GREAT job! They weren't sure what was wrong; but sensed something wasn't right and followed up on it. If they had ignored their suspicions; we could have very easily hauled something we cannot haul. [Reporter further stated] When we got the old paper cargo load reports it would have Hazmat listed so it was easy to check and verify. With electronic upload it is harder for crew to be as aware of what specifically is being loaded. Maybe when Hazmat is loaded there should be a paper report like the old cargo report presented to crew so they can verify shipments.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported refusing DG cargo because weight exceeded maximum weight allowed per FOM.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-7
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying a Maule into IMC and light rain while being vectored around thunderstorms at 4;000 MSL. As I began flying through the clouds I turned on the carb heat in order to keep ice from forming in the carburetor. As soon as the rain began; the engine ran a little rough and progressively began choking. At full throttle it was only putting out 1;500 RPM. This was not sufficient thrust to maintain altitude. Throughout this incident I lost 500 FT from my on course altitude. The Controller mentioned that my altitude was indicating lower than 4;000 FT. I told the Controller I was unable to maintain altitude and that I wanted vectors to the nearest airport. The Controller did a fantastic job redirecting me to the nearest airport and I was able to land the aircraft without incident.




Synopsis: An M-7 pilot flying IFR in rain was unable to maintain power and requested ATC vectors to a nearby airport where a safe landing was accomplished.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Flight Crew
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: [The Company employs] a disproportionate amount of contact Maintenance personnel. The contract maintenance personal work very hard and under much stress being dictated to performing multiple maintenance tasks at the behest of a very small cadre of [Company] Maintenance personal. It also appears that this small cadre of [Company] Maintenance employees work in a supervisory role. As a contracted maintenance employee; it has come to my attention; that they are not afforded direct access to the company safety reporting system in either [of the two available] systems. The only way a contracted mechanic can report a safety concern of the [Company] operations is to go to a [Company] employed Mechanic (Supervisor) and ask for access into the reporting system; presumably under that supervisors name access. If my understanding is correct; this approach could severely undermine the integrity of the overall safety reporting system and would create a gaping hole embedded within the [Company's] Safety System. If the [Review Board] can verify that contracted maintenance personnel who work for and on the aircraft that service the certificates under [Company] have unimpeded access to the safety reporting system all would be better served and a better safety culture can coexist. Please if the [Review Board] can address the potential safety issues that potentially exists the safety system would be the better for the effort.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain reported that company Contract Maintenance are not afforded direct access to the company reporting system.
Date: 201701
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While reviewing the flight plan for our trip to ZZZZ; I noticed a volcano symbol on the map; along with a note concerning volcanic ash activity in the remarks section. I called the Dispatcher to obtain more specific information concerning the ash threat and the forecast area of its movement. We had a productive conversation concerning the prevailing wind near the plume and also discussed the reasons for choosing ZZZZ1 for an alternate. Before ending our conversation; I asked the dispatcher if any company flights had encountered the volcanic ash and had problems. The dispatcher said that he was not aware of any.After operating the flight and awaiting our return deadhead; several passengers were discussing how the flight the day before had canceled after flying through volcanic ash and requiring maintenance. After a little research; I discovered the attached logbook entry detailing how a company 737 flew through ash and showed signs of exposure. I am concerned that there is not a more serious awareness of the potential safety hazard of flying through volcanic ash. Also; I think our dispatchers may not be receiving these incident reports from maintenance. While I realize the ash was forecast to remain clear of ZZZZ; I still feel we need all information available in case forecasts prove wrong.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported concern for a potential safety hazard of flying through volcanic ash.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MU-2
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Second aircraft: Cessna Twin Turboprop Undifferentiated or Other Model
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ON IFR clearance departing BPT; climbing as assigned on 195 radial to the 50 DME fix; I was in the co-pilot seat (not flying). The first Houston Controller advised us of traffic off our left with no transponder/unverified. We advise negative contact. We were headed toward the sunrise in the bright haze. After handoff to next controller; we were told that it was no longer observed. Approximately 7;000-8;000 feet; I saw what appeared to be a twin Cessna of some type out of the pilot's window. (Filling the window due to the close proximity.) It was coming from our 8-9 o'clock (under the wing tip) moving toward our 2 o'clock; and it passed directly under our nose. As soon as I saw it; I disconnected the autopilot and made an abrupt pull up maneuver to gain some space between aircraft. When I first saw it; he was probably 100-200 feet closing directly at us. There was no traffic alert. We did not see any target on our traffic display until after I reported the incident to ATC and inquired if he had a transponder. The controller apologized and said he was showing a transponder...which we now depicted on our display (apparently he turned it on after the near miss).




Synopsis: MU-2 pilot reported an NMAC with another aircraft. Reporter suggested that the other aircraft did not have an operating transponder at the time of conflict.