elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
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
Aircraft component: Cooling Fan; any cooling fan
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise; the avionics compartment fan turned on and we experienced a mild strange odor and an associated thud. We contacted Maintenance Control via Satcom and they concurred that we should pull the avionic compartment fan circuit breaker as a precaution. Maintenance Control; Dispatch; and us as a crew; decided it was the proper course of action. Within minutes of pulling the breaker; the acrid odor was dissipated. We continued without further incident and the aircraft discrepancy was documented in the logbook.


Second narrative: At cruise we detected an electrical burning smell. We suspected the avionics cooling fan. We wanted to act quickly before the situation got worse so we immediately contacted Maintenance Control and Dispatch to confirm with them that pulling the Circuit Breaker (CB) was the correct course of action. After pulling the CB the smell went away quickly. Our decision making was hindered by the lack of information presented in the systems manual on the number of fans in operation in the avionics bay and the related CB's. After pulling the CB we looked in the MEL for the avionics fan and it does not even have a Dispatch Maintenance Procedure (DMP). The systems manual seems to indicate we have 4 fans but the CB panel and MEL seem to indicate 5 fans. Please follow up with me and let me know if the fan indeed was on its way to a bad end.


Synopsis: MD11 flight crew detects an electrical burning smell during cruise at FL370 and suspects the avionics cooling fan. Maintenance Control is consulted and the fan circuit breaker is pulled and the smell quickly dissipates. Flight continues to destination.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FDK.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D FDK
ATC / advisory: Ground FDK
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After receiving a clearance from Ground Control to taxi via taxiways C; B; and A; I began to taxi. While on taxiway C; I heard ground clear another Skyhawk to taxi to the runway via taxiways E and A. I continued to taxi while looking for the other traffic. There is a downgrade on taxiway B that takes it below a hill between taxiways B and A as you near the intersection of B and A. Taxiway B clears that hill just before the intersection. After looking to my right towards taxiway A and seeing no one; I continued to taxi towards the intersection and looked left in the direction I was to turn. As I was turning onto taxiway A; I saw the other Skyhawk in my peripheral vision and hit the brakes to stop at the same time as the other pilot. Both planes were in the intersection stopped a few feet away from each other. The other pilot called Ground to advise of the near collision and the controller apologized stating that they had lost sight of us. I radioed the other pilot and asked if everyone was okay. After determining that no collision had occurred and there were no injuries; I agreed to continue my turn as I was in front of the other plane. We both continued to the runup area without incident and continued with our flights. While the terrain and darkness were contributing factors; I believe that the primary cause was a failure to approach a known hotspot with due caution. In the future I will pause as I approach this intersection and use an extra second to check for traffic before continuing.




Synopsis: A General Aviation aircraft following taxi instructions from ATC had to suddenly brake to avoid another aircraft taxiing into the same intersection.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared SSTIK1 departure; after takeoff assigned heading 270 for traffic; then further left to a heading of 180. SID requires at or below 10000 feet at PORTE; no other altitude assigned. Before reaching PORTE; received left turn to 090; direct NTELL when able. As Pilot Flying I leveled off at 10000 feet; since we were still North of PORTE and never received clearance to resume SSTIK1 departure nor had there been a different altitude assigned. SID clearly states; after PORTE; on transition; continue climb to FL190. We never reached PORTE; never received clearance to resume/join the transition; all vectoring was before PORTE. It sounded like the controller has expected us to continue our climb to FL190 without ever reaching PORTE or rejoining the departure transition.


Second narrative: Climbing out on the SSTIK 1 SID in SFO. We were climbing to our initial climb restriction of 10;000 feet as published on SID. We were given a heading off course at about 7;500 feet. We then were instructed to fly a heading direct to a fix NTELL. We leveled off at 10;000 feet thinking center would give us higher since we never reached our initial fix PORTE which was our 10;000 foot restriction. About 1 minute into the new heading direct NTELL center gave us a turn back off course and asked why we have not climbed to 19;000 feet?


Synopsis: A319 flight crew departing SFO on the SSTIK1 reports receiving several vectors and ultimately direct NTELL; prior to reaching PORTE. The crew levels at 10;000 feet since they have not passed PORTE; which is not what ATC was expecting.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GEZ.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G GEZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF GEZ
Second aircraft: Thunderbolt II (Warthog A-10)
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on a single-pilot training/proficiency flight; I was practicing engine-out landing at home airport (GEZ). As I turned short left base for Runway 01; a two-ship flight of A-10 aircraft transited the traffic pattern airspace flying South-to-North. The A-10's were approximately where one would be if on close downwind for Runway 19 at GEZ; at or below 1;000 AGL (I had already reduced power and descended a couple hundred feet when I saw the two-ship as they crossed my nose; slightly above the horizon).The A-10s did not communicate via CTAF. The lead ship maneuvered to the east somewhat (apparently spotting me at the same time I spotted him); and his wingman followed. This is the second time in the past thirty days that this situation has occurred at GEZ to my knowledge. Low-level military aircraft presumably are transiting this area after training at Atterbury Range. There is not a low-level training route that transits GEZ airspace. However; aircraft departing Atterbury using GPS direct to Fort Wayne could be led to overfly GEZ. This practice is not safe for ordinary traffic. Military authorities should brief mission pilots to not overfly civil airfields at pattern altitudes; charted low-level routes should be used.




Synopsis: An AA5 pilot suffered a close encounter with a flight of two A-10s in the pattern at GEZ.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After descending from FL410 to FL310; the right engine remained at 54.6% N1 while the left engine operated normally. Despite the thrust lever being advanced; N1 did not increase even though the trend vector was advancing to what should have been normal thrust. At this time there were no other EICAS or abnormal indications of any sort. After descending from FL310 to FL270; the thrust levers advanced and normal power was produced by both engines. The right engine continued to operate normally for the remainder of the flight. While we did request and receive priority handling; no emergency was declared and we landed with no further incident.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain reported anomalies on right engine indications during descent.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Aircraft component: ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: As we prepared for pushback from DEN; we received a message from Dispatch that numerous aircraft departing DEN were losing their GPS; possibly due to interference from the 5G signals.  We discussed the possibility of losing our GPS on our departure.  During our initial climbout at 800 feet AGL; we received an EICAS message indicating that we lost our ADS-B out capabilities.   I reported this to ATC; and we were told by ATC; that numerous aircraft had been experiencing various navigation/Communication failures which appeared to be due to interference of the new 5G signals.  These failures included loss of GPS; Loss of ADS-B; and loss of transponder. In our case; we only had a loss of the ADS-B out. signal. By FL180 everything returned to normal operations.  We had no further issues with any of our communication and or navigation equipment for the rest of the flight.  We notified Dispatch of our issues while departing DEN.  We did not write up the ADS-B as an ELB; as the problem seemed related to the 5G signal and then went away as we gained more altitude on the climb.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported losing ADS-B out capabilities on departure from Denver.  Reportedly; ATC advised the crew of several ADS-B; GPS and transponder issues possibly due to 5G interference.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: One hour from destination we received the SFO Digital ATIS which indicated simultaneous charted visual approaches to runway 28 L & R in use.  We briefed for the most likely approach; which involved flying a VOR radial; with DME altitude requirements to a visual point and then flying visually to the runway with possible closely spaced traffic.  This is an unusual approach to set up and fly in our highly automated RNP cockpit; as it must be flown manually without the FMS; at night.  At about this time we started receiving multiple airspeed changes and delaying vectors from OAK center.  I would say we were vectored and returned direct to a way point no less than 15 times over the next 25 minutes.  As we were descending through the low 20's; we received the new ATIS which now stated that the LDA DME 28R PRM and the ILS 28L PRM approaches were in use.  Setting up and briefing for this new approach required considerable cockpit work; as well as reviewing the plate and the PRM requirement sheet which took easily 5 minutes to read and understand.  During this time the vectors for spacing continued.  Out of 5;000 feet; a frequency change to a new controller brought the news that the ATIS had changed again; and to expect the ILS 28R; and advise when we had info 'N'.  Digital ATIS was requested; and the advertised approach was the 'dependent' ILS 28 R & L.  A normal ILS and landing followed; however the workload during this arrival and approach was unacceptable in my opinion.  3 approach set ups and briefings during a high workload arrival resulted in what I consider to be an unsafe situation.  We are trained and equipped to fly RNP; LPV and RNAV SID's and STAR's; however our experience is we are very seldom left on any of these new arrivals or departures and are often vectored and issued altitude constraints which are different from those which are charted.  This provides the potential for confusion; loss of separation and ultimately defeats the purpose of these procedures.  This scenario is occurring more often in the NAS.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of numerous runway and approach changes inbound to destination airport.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was scheduled for the re-qualification X course. I requested a warm up sim and was denied by Person X going through my chief pilot office. Person X claims that warm up sims are a waste of time and don't improve an already high pass rate. Person X said training is designed to catch any lack of proficiency prior to the CQLOE [Continuing Qualification Line Operational Evaluation]; so a warm up sim isn't necessary as normal training will catch any lack of proficiency.I did the traditional re-qualification X course in month after being off the type X aircraft for X years. I only flew about 90 hours on the type X aircraft prior to the reduction of flying. I haven't flown since the middle of month. I thought requesting a warm up sim was reasonable considering my lack of recency/proficiency on the type X aircraft; and a new very short re-qualification course.The new re-qualification X course has several areas that aren't covered prior to the LOE [Line Operational Evaluation]. In the curriculum; it shows the initial 3 sims all start engines running on the runway. There is no practicing flows; FMS work on the ground; starting engines; or normal ground ops getting to the runway which are some of the most high risk areas. There is no time built into the curriculum to work on procedures for people that have [not] flown for 8-9 months and didn't have much recency.I feel the company is focused on pushing through as many people through as quickly as possible when the company let them lose currency. I don't feel that the new re-qualification X course is appropriate or safe for all pilots that can be trained under it. There should be other recency requirements for pilots to be trained under the new re-qualification X.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported requesting a warm up simulation prior to a re-qualification simulation and was denied.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: 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: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in contact with Approach and was cleared for the RNAV Runway XX approach to ZZZ. There was a temporary Tower in use at ZZZ; and when I was between ZZZZZ and ZZZZZ1; I was handed off to the Tower. I contacted the Tower and advised that I was RNAV XX inbound at 2;600 ft. The Tower replied 'Not in contact; cleared to land.' A Cessna Citation called the Tower; advising 'Left downwind; Runway XX.' I was not in visual contact with the ground or the runway; but in between cloud layers. I saw the Citation depicted on the ADS-B link on my primary flight display. The distance between my aircraft and the Citation continued to close. I was still on the RNAV approach when I received a traffic alert. I saw the Citation close in and turn across my flight path to intercept the final approach course. I made an evasive turn south off of the approach course to go behind the Citation. I advised the Tower of the conflict and asked to be vectored out and back to the approach. The Tower handed me off to Approach who provided vectors back to the approach which was completed on the second attempt.I know the Citation was not in visual conditions because I could not see the runway and both of us were in the same place. I believe the Citation lost visual contact with the runway but did not advise the Tower at ZZZ or Approach and decided to continue and intercept the final approach course without an instrument clearance. I believe the Citation crew were in a hurry to get to the airport to pick up passengers.




Synopsis: BE36TC pilot reported experiencing an NMAC with another aircraft on approach.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylark 175
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 15 miles out we noticed a drop in oil pressure; so we began looking for the nearest airport. Being familiar with the area we knew there were four airports nearby all of which were 15-20 miles away.ZZZ was as close as any and it was the least populated area. We attempted to climb as the oil pressure continued to decrease. At approximately 9 miles from ZZZ we lost oil pressure and the engine RPM dropped significantly (Approx. 800-1;000 rpm). We found a field just West of a highway and set up for an emergency landing. As we touched down we saw a ravine in the middle of the field. Unable to slow down before the ravine we kept up our speed up and lifted back off the ground until we were clear of the ravine. Setting down shortly thereafter the nose wheel dug into the ground and the nose gear broke free from the fuselage; we then slid on the belly of the airplane for a short while at which time the nose of the airplane dug in and the aircraft flipped onto its back coming to a full stop.




Synopsis: Pilot noticed a drop in oil pressure and loss of power. Pilot landed in a field; resulting in aircraft damage and no injuries.