elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
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
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was training a Radar Control Developmental on R35. Aircraft X was climbing to FL320 at a good rate. Aircraft Y was descending to FL330 per the LOA. Traffic was called to Aircraft X and was acknowledged by the pilot. Traffic was called to Aircraft Y with no reply. We then cleared military aircraft into a refueling track. We then noticed Aircraft Y at FL335. We asked if he level at FL330; he replied that he was responding to a RA. Aircraft X also said they were responding to an RA. When Aircraft Y climbed they got close to Aircraft Z who also responded to a RA. It's my experience that traffic calls are not always acknowledged by pilots. However I think if Aircraft Y had had gotten the traffic call this scenario could have been avoided. Given the climb rate of Aircraft X; we could have restated the traffic.




Synopsis: ZDV Controller reported both aircraft responded to RA when standard separation was applied; resulting in an airborne conflict.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Event occurred due to a door seal failing and the pressure inside the cabin putting too much stress on the seal. On the previous flight the Flight Attendant complained that the main passenger door was louder than usual in flight. After landing I went out to inspect the door and found nothing wrong.After leaving ZZZ we were climbing through about 19;000 feet when an extremely loud noise started. [It] was loud enough that it was difficult to hear the radios through the headsets. The Flight Attendant immediately called up to the flight deck to tell us that it was the door that was making the noise. We stopped climbing at 20;000 feet and pressurization seemed to be holding. The First Officer and I discussed returning to ZZZ and decided that it would be the best course of action for safety; due to the possibility of loss of pressurization; and passenger comfort; due to the noise.We notified ATC of our intent; followed by Dispatch then the Flight Attendant and passengers. As we descended the noise seemed to decrease; and we were able to hold on the Runway XX approach course while we burned enough fuel to get below landing weight. Once on the ground we returned to the gate; deplaned and called Maintenance. The Mechanic found that the door seal had separated from the door from around halfway down the aircraft front side; around the first step and about a quarter of the way up the back.After replacing the seal and running multiple pressurization tests the seal was continuing to pop out of place. After the loud noise inbound to ZZZ; I could have called Maintenance even though I was unable to determine that anything was wrong.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported a door seal malfunction inflight resulting in a return to departure airport.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ABQ.TRACON, NM
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked onto departure assigned the MNZNO3 departure. Departure assigned Aircraft X to climb via the SID and Aircraft X read this back. While on the SID about a mile south of YUGLU; where aircraft need to begin their climb; Aircraft X was confused of the climb instructions and said 'We just want to verify that we're supposed to maintain 90?' Departure corrected their misinterpretation and told them 'Top altitude FL200'. They then understood immediately that they needed to climb fast to meet the climb requirements to meet the MVA as they climbed 2;300 feet in about six miles all within one minute. Had their rate of climb been slow; or their confusion more delayed; they would not have made the MVA and Departure would have been required to vector Aircraft X off the SID to climb above the MVA. This is a safety problem if Departure were busy and did not notice the aircraft delaying their climb; or leveling off at 90 before turning to the east into the MVA. It takes one minute from the fix YUGLU; where they're supposed to begin their climb; before reaching MNZNO; where they begin their turn to the east into an MVA of 113. If Departure is expecting pilots to comply with 'Climb Via' instructions; and they read this back; their scan may not be focused on the departing aircraft's altitude; especially with a high workload.Aircraft on clearance should be instructed to 'Climb via Sid' with no altitude restrictions; and if approach needs an altitude restriction this will be given upon aircraft check in.-OR-All pilots need to be on the same page that when departure clears an aircraft to 'Climb via SID' this deletes the clearance delivery restriction previously given.




Synopsis: ABQ Tracon Controller reported an air carrier pilot was confused by a climb via clearance and delayed climbing.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pushed Back/Taxied prior to receiving final DG [documents].




Synopsis: B787 Captain reported aircraft pushed back from gate without required dangerous goods documents.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Grumman Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying to an air show I experienced engine trouble which was later determined to be a swallowed valve. The engine developed severe vibration as well as cutting on and off. I had considerable smoke in the cockpit as well. I declared an emergency and was vectored to the nearest suitable airport where I was able to make a safe landing without any damage to the aircraft; airport or myself.All facets of ATC did a fantastic job of assisting me with this emergency. I was able to use them as an asset as they provide vectors; runways in use; winds and provided me with the UNICOM frequency and alerted the airport of my emergency. Their assistance allowed me to concentrate on flying the plane and not these other things.




Synopsis: The engine of a vintage Grumman war bird swallowed a valve and ATC provided generous assistance while vectoring the pilot to the nearest suitable airport where he made a safe landing.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During departure from ONT we encountered a windshear event on the SNSHN departure from ONT. At approximately 2000 ft. MSL with the autopilot just engaged; we encountered moderate turbulence and windshear. The windshear rolled the aircraft into a 40 degree right bank in accordance with a right 180 turn per the departure procedure. I was the Captain and Pilot Monitoring with the FO (First Officer) as the Pilot Flying. I announced the bank angle along with the GPWS callout 'BANKANGLE.' The FO reacted appropriately and disengaged the autopilot; leveled the wings; recovered and maintained RNAV track per the procedure. The autopilot was re-engaged but had to be disconnected multiple times due to inadequate autopilot response to the windshear; including a 2000 fpm descent and a 1000 fpm descent while trying to maintain altitude of 8000 ft. per the RNAV departure procedure. Control of the aircraft was accomplished with more ease manually than the autopilot. We elected to manually fly the procedure until clear of the windshear. As Pilot Monitoring I annunciated our slight deviations of altitude to ATC and PIREP of the conditions. After climbing through 10;000 ft. the windshear event was over except for the moderate turbulence through the climb and after passing the LAS VOR. The aircraft never exceeded any limitations or was at any point at risk of an undesired state.The windshear event was considered a warning and not necessary for a windshear escape maneuver. Control of the aircraft manually was sufficient enough to maintain course; altitude and airspeed




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported encountering windshear departing ONT.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach to MIA runway 9; at approximately 500 AGL; I saw a drone pass our flight path. I pointed it out to the Captain; flying pilot. No avoidance maneuvers were necessary. The drone; black and white in color and a quadcopter design; passed from south to north.


Second narrative: I was flying the RNAV GPS approach to Rwy 9 at MIA. While stable on the glidepath at about 7 or 8 hundred feet above the ground I saw the co-pilot begin pointing at something out of the corner of my eye. At first he didn't say anything; I think because he wasn't sure what he was seeing. After a few seconds I looked to see if I could see what he was pointing at but I didn't see anything. A few seconds later he pointed again and this time I could see what he was pointing at. When I saw it; it was to our left (north of us); it appeared to be at the same altitude which was about 500 feet and it appeared to me to be moving away from us. I only saw it briefly but the object appeared to me to be a drone. It appeared to be very close to us when I saw it; perhaps 1/4 mile. The co-pilot told me later that when he first saw the drone it was to our right or South of our flight path and it then moved across our path. Had we arrived a few seconds sooner or had the drone gone by a few seconds later I think that there is a real possibility that we would have struck it. Obviously I think that there needs to be some restrictions on the areas and altitudes where these craft can fly.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported a NMAC with a drone at 500 feet AGL during approach to MIA Runway 9. The quadcopter was pointed out to the flying Captain; but no evasive action was required.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CDW; Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Airport; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was working Southwest flow; arrivals to satellite airports and multiple smaller uncontrolled airports. I vectored Aircraft X for an ILS 23 approach to MMU airport. I turned and cleared Aircraft X at 2000 ft for approach. This was the approach in use. I noticed a 1200 code climbing out of CDW airport NW bound leaving 1000 ft. I monitored this aircraft's climb and figured he would stop at 1500 ft. The aircraft continued to climb to 2000 ft directly in front of Aircraft X also at 2000 on localizer. I issued traffic to Aircraft X. Aircraft X got a TCAS alert and climbed above the traffic. He then descended back to localizer and glide slope. I asked if he would like to be vectored for the approach again; he said no that he would continue and land. I called CDW Tower about the VFR and they were speaking to the aircraft. I asked why they would let him climb directly in front of an aircraft on an instrument approach. I believe they said they thought he would stop below Aircraft X. This has been going on for years; VFR's off of this airport climb directly into IFR arrivals on the approach and cleared. This is so dangerous; and the Tower likes to say that the aircraft departing are VFR and they can do what they want. They are in their Class D and should not be allowed to climb directly into another aircraft just because they are VFR. I believe that a mid-air collision is going to happen if you continue to have aircraft climbing and descending to the same altitude. There is no separation between these aircraft. I reported this problem to my supervisor who said they would look into it. This situation has been report many times in house. This needs to stop now. An IFR on approach should not have to be looking for VFR's right in his face; at his altitude. This has to be looked into; no more games with pilots' lives. This airport's controllers should not allow these pilots to climb directly into another aircraft and say they're 'VFR.' I thought we were Air Traffic Controllers.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported a VFR aircraft climbed into the path of an aircraft on an instrument approach to a nearby airport and that this is a recurring problem.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Stall Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a visual approach between MIN MANUEVERING and VREF; the stick shaker activated momentarily. I asked the First Officer to fly 'the green line' as I was uncertain what the heart of the problem was. This contributed to a potential long landing; so we went around. I double checked the aircraft weight and speeds and did not find a significant difference (2 kts). During the landing (in ground effect); we received the stick shaker momentarily again. When I looked at the airspeed we were thirty knots above the stall queue.I'm not certain what the root cause of this event is. While we were at or above speed we received the stick shaker only. I saw neither the CONTINOUS IGNITION nor the STALL WARNING either time. I would like feedback on this situation if possible. I have been concerned for a couple of years now...it seems that the green line has been at or above our TOLD cards' reference speeds. Today it was approximately fifteen knots higher than VREF. I feel like we are flying under speed.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported the stick shaker activated in a seemingly spurious manner not justified by the flown airspeeds.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Took off runway XX at ZZZ; around 500 ft. AGL; we lost a lot of engine power; heard a loud metal clanking/rattling sound; and smelled smoke and saw white smoke. I immediately took over and turned towards runway XX. I asked Tower to land; and they cleared us on any runway surface. Once on the ground we tried to take a taxiway but the engine made the noise again so we shut down and Tower sent a tug out for us. We did not [request priority landing]; but Tower did break off an approach and clear us to land on any runway surface.




Synopsis: Cessna 150 flight instructor reported experiencing engine failure after takeoff.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on the ramp and called Approach on my cellphone to obtain my IFR clearance. I was given my clearance; told to hold for release; and to call Approach when I was at the departure runway on a frequency which was to work on the ground. I was told that if the frequency did not work; to call on my cellphone. I announced on the UNICOM frequency that I was taxiing to runway 9 behind an aircraft. When I reached the departure runway I tried to call approach on the frequency given; but I could not reach Approach so I called on my cellphone. I received an immediate release with a void time.My error was in not changing the frequency on my com radio back to UNICOM. I made my announcement that I was taking runway 9 with a right turn out but because I had not returned the radio to the UNICOM frequency I did not hear other traffic departing on runway 3 nor did anyone else hear my transmission. There was an aircraft taking off from runway 3; and I was already airborne when I saw it. The aircraft was moving from my right to my left; and I had room to takeoff behind it but the clearance between our planes was not adequate. My error was in not assuring that I had the correct UNICOM frequency on my com radio. It is important that pilots always check the frequency that is tuned in especially in situations like this where changes were made to the tuned frequency.




Synopsis: Small aircraft Pilot departed from an uncontrolled field while on the incorrect UNICOM frequency. Pilot experienced a near miss with another departing aircraft on a crossing runway.