elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I announced my departure from a remote airport on CTAF; stating Runway 07 and departing to the east. I then took off and maintained runway heading as I climbed out. There is a VOR near the river on this heading approximately 3 miles east of the airport. At about 1;500 MSL approaching the VOR I had just changed over to the 'common' frequency along the river when I noticed a Commercial Air Carrier twin in front and slightly below; heading directly at me. I turned slightly to the right and increased pitch slightly from climb so I could maintain visual contact with the approaching aircraft. It passed close enough that I could clearly see the pilots. The aircraft did not appear to take any evasive measures and continued on its straight descending attitude.First; I expect the traffic was on an IFR flight plan and the pilots may not have heard me announce my taxi or departure calls (same 123.0 frequency) from the airport. I think they were monitoring or contacting Center announcing their arrival and therefore not monitoring the airport frequency. There is very limited cell phone coverage at this remote airfield and it is possible they were using their radios while still in contact with Center to close their flight plan. Second; because the winds were calm; the aircraft was making a direct approach to Runway 25 as I was making a direct departure from Runway 07 (same runway; opposite direction). Third; I was approaching the VOR and near the river and I may have changed frequencies too soon. I heard no response or other traffic at anytime from taxi to departure so I did not expect other aircraft in the airport area during my departure. To prevent a repeat of this incident I will not maintain runway heading for so long after departure. I will fly an off-set heading ensuring I am not flying towards an aircraft making a straight in approach. Also; I would strongly encourage airport information to direct arriving aircraft to remain north of the river and departing aircraft to fly south of the river. Lastly; I will be extra aware when flying near a VOR and will better monitor two frequencies when appropriate.




Synopsis: A C-172 departing a remote airfield suffered an NMAC with a commercial fixed wing aircraft inbound; opposite direction to the same runway.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After a normal takeoff; at approximately 1;000 feet; the First Officer and I noticed a slight vibration. At 1;500 feet when we set climb power to 1;050 RPM the vibration increased. At that point we decided to try 900 RPM to see if that would reduce the vibration; but the vibration seemed to increase. We determined that this was not a normal vibration and that it was continuing to worsen. We told ATC that we would need to return for landing. As we turned for a right downwind the vibration increased so much that the control yoke was actually shaking in my hands. The First Officer called the Flight Attendant and cabin to notify them of our return. We lowered the landing gear and flaps. As we turned base the vibration had increased to the point that we decided to declare an emergency. We could not determine which engine was causing the vibration but noticed the number one engine torque did fluctuate about 10%. All other engine indications were normal. The landing was normal with no control problems. We taxied to the gate and safely deplaned the passengers.        After Maintenance inspected the aircraft they determined that the Number 3 prop blade bearing race on the Number one engine was bad; causing the extreme prop vibration.




Synopsis: Dash 8 Captain reported significant vibration after takeoff so the flight returned to departure airport; where a bad propeller blade bearing race was found.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out from ZZZ; had low oil pressure indication on the right engine (#2-around 13 and red box). Aircraft had previous write-ups for high oil consumption; and we had Maintenance service the right engine during preflight (was showing 55 percent).Ran non-normal checklist for Engine Low Oil Pressure followed by Engine Failure or Shutdown. Notified ATC of situation. Vectored back to ZZZ for recovery. Captain elected to perform landing. Recovery was uneventful and coordinated with Maintenance personnel at the ramp on the issue.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737 crew reported a right engine shutdown due to low oil pressure during climb out. Crew reported uneventful recovery to departure airport.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VGT.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Airspace: Class D VGT
ATC / advisory: Tower VGT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I have flown commercially and privately at VGT for [many] years. Recently the calm runways changed from the standard 7 and 12 L/R to using 30 L/R which renders 7/25 useless for traffic. Practice IFR approaches are on 12 which is a conflict with aircraft departing 30 and doing pattern work. Even with a tailwind 30 L/R is still being used. Having worked in airline management and training pilots I cannot understand the reason for this. I am writing a safety report for the third time in my entire career because I believe there will be a fatal crash at VGT in the future if there are no changes. In addition; controllers are being trained which is understandable but their supervisors are not taking over early enough when there is a problem developing.Recently I intended to do touch and goes. The tower told me to fly runway heading then called my crosswind. I was at pattern altitude of 3000 MSL. A cessna approaching the airport from the west over the departure end of 30L was also at 3000 feet and closing. The TCAS warned me and I dove 400 feet to avoid a direct collision then saw him fly overhead at 3000 feet. I told the Tower who by then had taken over for the trainee controller and told me to fly to the [local landmark] then called my base turn. On a base descent for landing a helicopter flew directly in front of me who I also had to avoid. I again told the tower what had just happened then said I would just land instead of a touch and go.A week before; another pilot who was flying with me and observing traffic had a similar situation and instead of doing touch and goes decided it was too dangerous at that point and landed. We are both really concerned because we fly out of VGT; practice there and agree there is a real safety problem.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot believes that the recent change at VGT from using runways 7 and 12L/R as the calm wind runways to using runways 30L/R is dangerous due to opposite direction instrument approaches and Controller training. A recent NMAC is cited as an example.
Date: 201204
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On our release briefing we briefed the weather in our destination and the fact no alternate was required. However; Dispatch included an alternate due to the chance of storms in the area. Weather in our destination was VFR. En route to our destination we got rerouted. We sent Dispatch the new route. We received new numbers from Dispatch verifying we had enough fuel on board. At all times we were closely monitoring our fuel and the weather into our destination. After reaching our final fix on the re-route; ATC began to give us vectors away from the field. We asked ATC if we would be getting turned toward our destination soon and they said no. At this time I made the decision to divert to our alternate. We had around 3;300 LBS of fuel. We declared minimum fuel. We coordinated with Dispatch the entire time of our intentions and fuel numbers. Around 2;300 LBS of fuel we declared a fuel emergency. Our alternate was an uncontrolled field at the time and another aircraft was ahead of us. By declaring an emergency we were ensured of not being slowed or put in a hold due to the proceeding aircraft. We landed with 1;800 LBS of fuel.




Synopsis: An EMB170 was dispatched to their destination with an alternate although none was required at the arrival time. A reroute by ATC and thunderstorms in the arrival area resulted in the decision to divert and declare minimum fuel. Enroute a fuel emergency was declared to prevent delays into the uncontrolled alternate. Aircraft lands with 1;800 LBS of fuel.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EVB.Tower, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D EVB
ATC / advisory: Tower EVB
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft had not flown in about 3 years. Condition inspection just completed. Tower was informed before taxi that operation was a test flight. On third takeoff on Runway 7; engine began missing badly passing through 700 ft. at 100 kts. Pilot immediately initiated left turn back toward airport while informing tower of engine problem. Turn was inside 2 other aircraft in the traffic pattern and speed allowed altitude gain to 800 ft. which is pattern altitude. Tower cleared aircraft for any runway at about the time the left turn was complete. Pilot pulled power back because engine missing was shaking airplane and at that point the engine quit running. Pilot informed Tower Runway 11 would be the landing runway. Pilot aimed for the end of Runway 11 and arrived there at about 300 ft. at which point pilot initiated a slip to get down to the runway and executed a normal crosswind landing with wind at approximately 10 kts. and 90 degrees to the port side of the aircraft. No other traffic was affected by this event. [Priority handling was not requested.] The engine problem is still being diagnosed; however it is likely a stuck valve due to overheating caused by poor cooling on a rear engine tightly cowled engine installation. The aircraft will not be flown again until the cooling issues are solved and the valves are inspected by an A&P Mechanic. The engine is a Lycoming O-320-E2D with 159 hours since major overhaul by a FAA certified shop that complied with all applicable AD's on the engine. The root problem is aircraft cooling; which problem caused the stuck valve.




Synopsis: Experimental aircraft pilot reported a loss of engine power on takeoff; resulting in a return to land.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After we got the takeoff data; I put Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) on performance INIT 3/3 in 4L. I noticed we have to move 3 passengers from C to A. I got distracted after we got the new data. I forgot to confirm the ZFW in the performance page. I thought I confirmed it but actually; I didn't. I put the speed; temperature; ECS and flex. Then we started taxing. When we reached the end of the runway; I noticed on top of the speed tap FMS speed showing 3 dashes. I checked the takeoff page and saw all the speed and flap showing correct. I thought it's a glitch. I put the speed to manual speed and did the takeoff from runaway 09. After takeoff; we flew tower assigned runway heading. During climb out; got a frequency change to Center and got direct to Initial Fix. Did a left turn and started to climb. During climb; we got CAUTION TERRAIN Aural Message. Hence we made a left turn and avoid the weather balloon. After that; we went direct to Initial Fix. Mean time going through the performance INIT page; I noticed I forgot to confirm the ZFW. At that point; I confirmed and fix the FMS speed problem and continued the flight. [My] suggestion [is to] avoid getting distracted while putting the numbers and double-check the numbers after we did.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported that after making changes to the takeoff data he did not confirm the zero fuel weight.  Captain also reported a CFTT warning during the takeoff.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was descending on the MARNR4 Arrival.  He was issued Runway 16R.  They usually plan Runway 16L; which is what he programmed into his FMS when he began the MARNR4 arrival.  (This arrival along with the HAWKZ has to have a runway loaded to fly it; this is part of the problem.)  When I issued Runway 16R; his FMS lost lateral and vertical guidance (which is unsafe but normal) and he said 'Aircraft X request heading off the arrival due to runway change.' This has been a problem for months and must be fixed if we want to keep using these arrivals.  Fortunately there was no traffic around but if these continue we won't always be so lucky.The facility tries to minimize these issues; due to the political pressure behind them.  First they said that this issue is only with certain airlines.  And we told them they were wrong.  Now they say that these issues are an aircraft maker problem and only exist in specified different type aircraft; obviously they are wrong about that too.  These issues occur with all types of aircraft on these arrivals.  Controllers keep saving the day every time these aircraft lose lateral and vertical guidance on the arrivals. The issue needs to be fixed immediately.




Synopsis: S46 Controller switches a heavy jet to a different runway. The jet loses FMC data because of the switch and requests a vector to restart the approach.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ABE.TRACON, PA
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
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABE
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: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: On arrival into ABE; was on vector and assigned altitude of 4;000 FT. Had cyan target on TCAS at 1 to 2 o'clock that appeared to be moving toward our flight path. The FO and I were attempting to visually acquire the traffic when we received an amber TA. I did not have the visual on traffic; but checking the TCAS display he appeared to be in closer than one mile and closing. I told the First Officer to prepare to climb. I was about to ask Approach about him as we had not been advised of this traffic when the TCAS indicated the target had began to climb and was now indicating less than 400 FT of vertical separation. TCAS RA climb activated and we immediately began climbing. We deviated from our assigned altitude by 2;000 FT climbing to 6;000 before receiving clear of conflict. ATC was advised of the RA and we were cleared to return to our previously assigned altitude. After completing the maneuver and re leveling at 4;000; I asked what the story was on the airplane that had caused it and it was a VFR aircraft that had not maintained his altitude.The threat is separating IFR and VFR traffic by 500 FT in the terminal area. I know it's legal but this is not the first time this has caused me to have an RA. We were flying on an assigned vector and altitude. This one happened pretty quick but I should have been a little quicker to request information on the unknown target and possibly a climb or turn before the RA. In this case there was very little time to take action aside from prompt compliance with the RA.


Second narrative: ATC told us the GA aircraft that caused the event was climbing to the wrong altitude.


Synopsis: A CRJ-200 flight crew responded to a TCAS RA with respect to a VFR GA aircraft which intruded on the minimum 500 foot vertical separation requirement climbing toward the CRJ.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 120 miles from ZZZ; we got an initial L Side Window EICAS. This was followed by a R Gen Off; R Bus Tie Off and R and L Utility Bus EICAS warnings. We ran each QRH procedure and were able to regain all buses and extinguish all EICAS except R Gen off. Requested priority handling; landed uneventfully. Excellent job by First Officer as Pilot Monitoring running multiple checklists.


Second narrative: [Narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported that a generator failure resulted in a diversion.