elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HPN.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: HPN SOUND VISUAL RWY 34/29. LGA ILS22 DEPT 13. TEB ILS19. Aircraft X LGA Arrival on the route which joins with the ILS 22 localizer descending out of 8;000 feet to 4;000 feet. Aircraft Y VFR landing TEB Descending out of 6500 feet Cleared into the NY BRAVO at 3;500 feet. VFR Departure off HPN observed at 2;000 feet eastbound. Aircraft Y is now at 3;500 feet direct HPN then VFR entry point Aircraft X is descending for 4;000 foot traffic with Aircraft Y called; targets are likely to merge. The VFR not talking to us at this time is at 3;000 feet traffic is called to Aircraft Y who advises traffic in sight and is climbing no factor. Traffic then called to Aircraft X leaving 5;500 feet; Aircraft X called the traffic in sight and was told to maintain visual. Aircraft X descended a bit more before responding to what is assumed to be an RA and was observed climbing back to 5;500 feet. The VFR calls for flight following now known as Aircraft Z. Aircraft Z climbed through both Aircraft Y and Aircraft X. When asked about it he said he wasn't issued any stop in climb from the tower and he advised he had traffic in sight when he climbed through their altitudes. ALL 3 TARGETS MERGED. I consider this a near midair. I suggest CLASS D be changed to a CLASS C and VFR departures be kept low clear of IFR arrival traffic which is known to be at 3;000 feet and 4;000 feet for HPN and LGA about 5 miles east of HPN. This kind of situation happens very frequently with the current Airspace/procedure and it is a matter of time before an accident occurs because of lack of control in this area with VFR flights.




Synopsis: Aircraft route inbound to TEB conflicts with approach course to LGA. These aircraft are procedurally separated. A VFR aircraft departed HPN along these routes and climbed VFR through two other aircraft. The VFR aircraft complied with all procedures. The reporter feels HPN should have its airspace classification changed and procedures put in place to prevent this occurrence in the future.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; 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 ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We loaded two pallets of hazmat (propane bottles) on as part of our [cargo load]. All propane bottles had screw-in type plugs installed; and no smell of propane [was] present at the time of loading. After departure and as altitude and pressure increased; we smelled propane fumes in the aircraft cockpit/cabin. I sent the cargo load handler into the main cabin to check the propane bottles. I understand he was able tighten some valves closed further. This diminished the fumes somewhat. At the top of climb (FL270) the fumes were not increasing any longer but they were also not decreasing. We elected to perform the 'smoke removal' checklist. Even though there was no smoke or fire; this was the most logical choice to clear the cabin of fumes.The initial portion of the checklist diminished the fumes; but not well enough. We requested and received from Center a descent to lower than 14;000 ft so that we could continue the checklist by depressurization of the aircraft. This cleared the fumes to our satisfaction. After calculating fuel left on board and our ground speed compared to our fuel consumption; it was decided that we were safe to continue to our destination. The rest of the flight passed uneventfully.I'd like to suggest a safety bulletin to all flight crew and outstations; highlighting the necessity for more consistent vigilance on matters such as 'propane bottle preparation for shipment'. This information could also be included in all future recurrent training.




Synopsis: Captain reported noticing odor and fumes from propane bottles loaded as hazmat. The fumes were cleared by descending and depressurizing the aircraft.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We noticed on the STAR portion of the arrival the FMS (Flight Management System) was not properly sequencing the arrival. The FMS wanted to take the plane off course. We notified ATC and they gave us a heading and altitude to fly. We thought we were able to correct the issue with FMS and ATC gave a new clearance to fly directly to the IAF on the RNAV Y RNW 27 ZZZ and as we flew on course to the IAF ZZZZZ we were cleared to fly the approach. We selected the approach altitude and started flying the approach. The autopilot was on and the FMS took the airplane off course in IMC. We were about 300 feet below that correct altitude. I overrode the autopilot and told the Captain what was happening. He took over the controls. We set the LOC frequency and told ATC that we lost all navigation. About 15 seconds later we broke out of the clouds and flew a visual approach. We landed the airplane safely. On the ground we notified Maintenance. Total FMS navigation failure. Recommend maintain vigilance and notify ATC immediately when anything like this happens and ask for a heading and altitude right away.




Synopsis: EMB-175 flight crew reported experiencing a Flight Management System Failure.
Date: 201308
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: There was a mechanical problem on this aircraft. A truck ran into an engine and put a crack in it. While we were waiting for paperwork after the crack was fixed. A loud pop occurred and the business galley filled with smoke from the ceiling. I was informed of this by a Flight Attendant and told to stay at my door in cases we have to evacuate. I was asked a brief time later while I was at my door by a Flight Attendant if I felt safe to stay on the plane. I said no. The Supervisor took me out unto the jet bridge to talk to me. He asked if I knew what a direct order was. I said yes. Do you want me to go back on the airplane? He said I can't force you. I can't push you. From then on he was intimidating and condescending. He said this is the last chance your decisions have consequences; you may or may not lose your job. I then said now I do not understand what your are saying about the direct order. I thought my safety was important. I don't want to say any more. I want a union representative.




Synopsis: Smoke developed from a B777 Business Galley ceiling and a Flight Attendant concerned for her safety was told to remain at her station in case of an evacuation.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Simple flight to LAS; no problem; nice weather both ends; short flight. We took off; busy; but no problems. I got the LAS ATIS. Winds were 190/8 landing Runway 7R and 19L. We were planning on 25L. I vaguely remember 7R being a pain and a quick check of the box proved me to be correct. The only approach was not in our approach plates. So a visual approach over sloping terrain; again no problem. I asked Center what way they were landing as our arrival was designed to land Runway 25L. They did not know; Approach confirmed [Runway] 7R. Everything was fine until we contacted Tower. Winds 240/14G18; cleared to land [Runway] 7R. I asked the Controller to confirm the winds. The Controller repeated the same winds; with no concern at all despite all the aircraft that can or will not land with tailwind greater than 10 KTS. I looked at the winds 1;000 AGL we had an 18 KT tailwind. We executed a go around as did another flight behind us. With no approach loaded; there was no missed approach. So we got visual vectors to [Runway] 19L which were short. We were kept very busy trying to follow their directions. The final insult was being told to maintain 1;300 AGL to 3 DME for helicopter traffic. I told them we were unable and they made the helicopter hold for us. We landed taxied clear. After clearing Runway 19L; I was finally able to get a word in edgewise to Ground. We were given taxi instructions and despite having the taxi chart out we still turned on the wrong taxiway due to the unfamiliarity of the Captain and poor signage at our intersection. We stopped; I contacted Ground with our error and we were given further taxi instructions with instruction to contact ramp. We were in complete control and very conservative in our decision making. Suggestions; LAS Tower unwilling to switch the runways when it was obvious it was required. Tower was fine with us landing with winds out of limits. When we landed the windsock was parallel to the ground out of the west south west. LAS Tower with all the aircraft that land there knows the wind limits for a 737-700 NG as well as other. They should have been more proactive.




Synopsis: LAS Air Carrier arrival voiced a complaint regarding ATC's runway assignment noting the tail wind factor that caused a go around.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; MEL
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While working the MEL items on this flight MEL 27-12 and MEL 27-17c. To review and apply MEL 27-12 you have to read and understand and apply 7 pages. Some of these are superceeded by an EMERGENCY REVISION DATED 7/10/14.  Now in the middle of those 7 pages you are redirected to MEL 27-17C to also read and understand and apply another 4 pages some of which are an EMERGENCY REVISION DATED 7/10/14.  This is a total of 11 pages to read; understand; and apply while running your desk and fielding other questions about other flights.  The Company and the FAA is setting the Dispatcher up for failure.  The EMERGENCY REVISION is over 4 mo old....   CAN YOU PLEASE PUSH THROUGH THE PERMANENT REVISION or remove the old 'revised' pages.  I understand that there are provisions to revise the MEL and some take time.... But 4 MONTHS?   The way the MEL is now with the EMERGENCY REVISIONS inserted may be the proper way to comply; And I am sure in the back offices of our air carrier where it was written and proofed prior to submission it is correct.  But from a USER STANDPOINT to the Dispatchers and Pilots working in a time sensitive distracting enviroment READING all 11 pages and understanding them then applying them is asking for FAILURE.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported concerns that overly complex MEL procedures and documentation could lead to errors.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Conditions: Clear; good visibility; winds 260 at 8 KTS gusting to 17. Gusts/winds were moving direction and about 30 minutes after mishap Tower changed to crosswind runway. Final approach Runway 23; 20 degrees flaps and 8 KTS over approach speed due to wind and gusts. [I] landed with crosswind consideration to deal with right crosswind. A bit bumpy (side to side) on final. Touched down wing low wheel (right) and at or just before; left wheel touched plane weathervane hard to right - about 45 degrees plus to runway. Plane skidded down runway as well as more right in direction of wheels; at that point given direction of wheels [and] at that point given direction falling and location that point given direction facing and location of aircraft on runway. I felt safer taxing smoothly and safely by direction of plane facing which was over short grass safety error and to Taxiway M. After review and discussions with authorities [I] taxied plane back to appropriate ramp area. One taxiway light was broken; no injuries; no apparent damage to plane after full external inspection by PIC; airport operations and Airport Authorities. Plane will be reviewed/inspected by mechanic. I believe strong gusts right at touchdown caused severe weathervane to right and as a result the plane moved quickly to right side of runway (on wheels). As to prevention-perhaps more in depth crosswind training will help. Include better pilot assessment of arrival conditions (windsock) not just ATIS-before landing. Also insist on different runway if; in PIC's determination it is warranted.




Synopsis: A C172 pilot landed in a gusty crosswind and after the aircraft weathervaned exited the runway; crossed a grassy area onto a taxiway without aircraft damage and only a taxiway light broken.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 425/441 Conquest I/Conquest II
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Returning to home base; I made a gear-up landing. I was flying a very long straight-in approach with approach flaps (15 degrees) selected. The winds were; 350 at 8; gusts to Runway X. When I selected flaps for landing there was no landing gear horn. Not that I use this as a method for checking the status of the landing gear; but sub-consciously assumed I was configured for landing. Neither one of the 2 passengers heard a horn; or buzzer of any sort. Sitting on the runway with the engines secured; and the landing gear retracted; and; the battery switch on; the landing gear warning should have still been sounding off! It Was not! The system's primary function is to remind the pilot about the gear if some reason he gets a little out of sync. Sure wish it worked properly that day.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Cessna 425 experienced a gear up landing following an approach in which the gear warning horn was reported to not have sounded.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A310
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While cruising at FL350; ECAM displayed a Left Window Heat Fault.  Complied with the ECAM by turning OFF/R the Left Window Heat. I hacked a clock and then pulled out the QRH to see if it contained any additional information. Before I turned the switch back on after the reset; the left front windscreen made a popping sound and spider-webbed.  Conveniently; I had the QRH in hand so we complied with the cockpit window cracked procedure. We contacted Center and requested a descent to FL230. We descended to FL230 and set the LDG ELEVATION accordingly. We did not request any further assistance and did not declare an emergency. We transferred aircraft control prior to the final descent and I flew an uneventful descent; approach; and landing. The Left Window Heat faulted while cruising at FL350. After complying with ECAM; the window cracked. Malfunctions occur and I am not aware of how this one could have been avoided or prevented.




Synopsis: A310 First Officer experiences a left window heat fault at FL350 and the heat is turned off and the QRH consulted. Before the heat is turned back on the window cracks. Flight descends to FL230 and continues to destination.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Near Mid Air Collision with Light Sport [Aircraft] when pilot announces West departure from runway 8 on his downwind departure leg westbound cuts across center line of my announced 26 straight out departure; at [this airport] this is common procedure; all local traffic know as well as Unicom. Unicom was up at this time. Evasive action taken; immediate left turn away from [conflict aircraft] and towards ridge.I am filing this Near Mid Air incident now as evidence of a systemic problem and following a recent runway incursion. This is the third time (first for me) happened once to other [pilots]. [This Light Sport pilot] has gone head on into a Caravan departing runway 26; the first two times required Caravans to abort take off roll; [the pilot] continued runway 8 take off; no communication. This incursion I aborted takeoff roll; and he taxied off the runway and said go ahead.




Synopsis: C208 pilot reported several traffic conflicts with a light sport aircraft at their home airport.