elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-23-250 Aztec
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying at a cruise altitude of 6;500 feet 5 miles east of [destination] airport in VFR conditions; began to smell a burning/smokey scent in the cockpit; looked around the cockpit in search of a source and found smoke coming from the instrument panel where the aileron trim gauge is located after turning the master switch off. While the master was off we searched for a Circuit Breaker (CB) for the electrical aileron trim and did not find an associated CB for the aileron trim which is why we left the master off and why we did not attempt to turn the master back on to use the radios. The needle inside the gauge was melted; landed without radio communications at the [destination] airport after entering the pattern at 2;500 AGL; making multiple high passes observing the pattern followed by light gun signals from the tower controller in which we made a successful landing with no injuries.Mechanic looked at our aircraft briefly; saying that he believes this was due to a short in the electrical system with the electric aileron trim. Aircraft is currently with maintenance.Suggest checking more often or replacing old age instruments more often to prevent situations like this. Specific circuit breaker for this instrument should be added to prevent loss of radio communications be it VFR or IFR where the following could create a greater safety risk.


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


Synopsis: Two pilots experienced smoke in the cockpit and a successful landing after receiving light gun signals.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Because of the COVID-19 situation we are trying to social distance. It was briefed that Operation managers would stay out of the areas from controllers as much as possible and controllers would not cover the CIC desk in order to limit the possibility of spreading the virus. Yesterday and today our OM has been roaming around the Control Room as if there is no direction to remain clear of the workforce. OM is also requiring the FLM to open sectors based on staffing not traffic needs. Both of these things I do not believe are good practice in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  I also am under the understanding that this goes against the guidance of the agency and CDC.I think management should be reminded that the purpose of this schedule is to minimize exposure of the workforce to potential illness.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported management was not following COVID-19 related facility policy for social distancing.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: An A320 departed Runway 1 left PORTE3 SID. In the next departure hole - after landing traffic on Runway 28L/R; a B757; departed Runway 1L on the PORTE3 SID. Upwind four miles; a B757 was about 1-2 miles east of the A320 who was incredibly slow and turned on a dime. I do not know whether or not a loss occurred in NCT airspace. Is it the aircraft -or- the pilot? Either way this is an example of a dangerous situation where Airbus aircraft are neither performing to their capability; and nor meeting the needs of the NAS.




Synopsis: SFO Controller voiced concern regarding the flight characteristics and/or pilot techniques of the A320 with regard to SID compliance.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ORD was in east flow and the ATIS was advertising RNAV PRM 10R. The prevailing ceilings were approximately 1000 AGL. While reviewing and briefing the approach; we both missed 'LNAV' minimums weren't shown on the PRM approach plate. Only 'LNAV/VNAV' was published on the PRM plate. We both missed this and used the 'LNAV/VNAV' minimums. Per company procedure; we rounded the minimums up to the nearest hundred feet. The rounded minimums were the same for 'LNAV' on the regular plate as they were for 'LNAV/VNAV' on the PRM plate. We realized the mistake during post flight.RNAV approaches are rarely done during line flying. Although since the introduction of PRM approaches in to ORD; specifically to runway 10R which has been done before may have been contributing factors. We should have been more alert to the unusual approach and reacted accordingly.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew did not initially detect that the RNAV PRM Runway 10R Approach to ORD did not list LNAV only minimums; only LNAV/VNAV minimums. The aircraft was capable of LNAV only.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working a late night shift and saw a couple Tech Ops guys go around the back side of the console. I heard them making some noise on what sounded like my sector or one very close by. I didn't think too much of it; but did notice and was slightly surprised. All of a sudden; there was a click or knock or something noise from somewhere behind my console. My scope; D-side and ERIDS all went black. I yelled 'Wrong one!'; then waited a couple seconds and yelled it again. I was hoping they'd quickly realize that whatever they just did was maybe not as well-planned out as it should have been. They walked around the backside and started going back down the hall to Tech Ops or where ever they go; and I told them that they killed the sector. They said something among themselves about not thinking that breaker controlled both sectors. The other Controller started quick-looking my sector and I was trying to set up Sector 42 to quick-look the dead Sector (40). But I didn't have the frequencies set up on 42 so I had to go back and forth until the supervisor did the configuration magic to get all the right frequencies to the new sector. Well; maybe we should label breakers better.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller described a total position equipment failure after noting two maintenance (Tech Ops) individuals making noise behind the equipment.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Premier 1
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After rotation left engine power was decreased as ITT (Inter-stage Turbine Temperature) increased. Pulled left engine back to reduce temperatures and [requested priority handling] but did not request [response] personnel. ATC cleared me back around to Runway XX at ZZZ and landed without incident. Upon exiting the airplane and inspecting the left engine it was determined that the bleed air clamp had broken and bleed air tubing was outside of the engine cowling. The bleed air clamp and broken pieces were all contained inside of the engine cowling.




Synopsis: Premier 1 Captain reported the engine ITT rose out of limits and elected to return to departure airport. It was determined that a clamp on the engine bleed air ducting failed and the ducting broke.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff we began running the After Takeoff Checklist and noticed that the red 'Gear Unlocked' light remained on after gear retraction. I then noticed that the 'Hyd Press On' annunciator light light remained on as well - informing us that the hydraulic system remained pressurized. Knowing that we cannot continue flight with the hydraulic system pressurized we quickly ran the appropriate emergency checklists which led us to believe that while our landing gear was operating normally; the microswitch used to open the hydraulic system was malfunctioning. After quickly diagnosing the problem; we advised Approach that we'd like to return for a precautionary landing. They asked if we needed further assistance; at which point; we advised that we were fine and didn't need any special assistance with the matter. We then cancelled the IFR flight plan and joined the left traffic pattern; performed the appropriate checklists and landed without incident. The entire flight took less than 6 minutes from the time we took off.Shortly after landing the Airport Authority began making phone calls to the airport asking if we were okay. I then was approached by an Airport Authority Official asking if we were okay and preceded to tell me that Approach was concerned about our safety. I told him that we were fine and that we relayed the same message to Approach while on frequency. I've heard nothing from either party since.I'm writing this report because there was a clear breakdown in communication due to the quick nature of this emergency. We made every attempt to address any concerns that ATC may have had by informing them that we did not need special services and that were planning a normal landing as a precautionary measure only. I'm concerned that ATC used valuable resources and time making extra efforts to contact us when such efforts were not needed.




Synopsis: When the associated hydraulic system improperly remained pressurized after landing gear retraction the flight crew of a C550 made a precautionary return and landing at their departure airport.  Although they had not declared an emergency they were met by airport officials inquiring as to their well being and aircraft status.  The reporter felt such efforts were unnecessary.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff I was pilot flying. After gear retraction I called for the autopilot on at 500 AGL and noticed a burning smell. I asked the Captain if he smelled it and no sooner [did] I ask; the cabin emergency call button illuminated. We took the call from the cabin and the FA mentioned an odd smell; almost that of burning rubber. We told her we would investigate and call her right back. We continued to clean up the aircraft (flaps up; after takeoff checks; etc.). After doing these things we noticed the smell went away. The Captain had thought that it might have been the tire plant in the area emitting the smell. I entertained the possibility but also mentioned the possibility of blowing a tire because of weird feeling on rotation and was wondering if it could be a blown tire. We continued on. About 20 minutes into the flight after climbing above the weather we gave the FA one chime indicating it was safe to serve. Shortly after she called and said a lady saw something fly off the aircraft and hit the fuselage just below her window. This confirmed my suspicion of a possible blown tire. I suggested we call ATC and have them contact the airport to see if they could find any parts of our tire on the runway. About 2 Controllers down line; it was confirmed they found pieces of our tire tread on the runway. The Captain and I discussed and determined the best way to handle this was to [advise ATC]; contact the company and have the FA have passengers brace for landing.  We also looked for procedures for this type of landing. There were none. I completed a flaps 45 landing with no issues. We stopped on the runway; had the plane inspected and were cleared for taxi to the gate after confirming the tire treads had separated from the right inboard tire. After returning to gate; maintenance discovered the engine would need changed because of tire tread going through it. Engine gave no abnormal indications.




Synopsis: ERJ-145 First Officer reported a tire failed on takeoff causing damage to an engine.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were at 7;000 ft and 210 knots at night and a bit more than 20 miles from [destination]. I saw a quick flash of what I could make out to be a number of birds; as they passed through the beam of the landing light; just a millisecond before they hit. We felt the impact but was only a small vibration. Immediately after the impact; we got a Duct Mon Fault and Anti-Ice Fault message. The Captain called the flight attendants right away; so that they knew what had happened. However; we did not inform ATC; as there was no issue with the aircraft and we figured it was too far out to be an airport hazard to other aircraft. Upon landing the Captain called maintenance and we both went out to look at the damage. It was at this point that we realized the damage was quite extensive; with multiple impacts along the wing and wing root.The threat was that the damage could have been worse and had a possible effect on the aerodynamics as we slowed.This was not a preventable situation but in the future; if it happen again; I will inform ATC. This way they have the information and may use it however they wish. Also; it may be good in this situation in the future; to ask the flight attendant; if they can see any damage to the wings; so that we can better evaluate the extent of the damage.


Second narrative: [We believe the type of birds to be] migratory geese.


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew reported damage to the left wing from an encounter with migratory geese at 7;000 ft.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aerofoil Ice System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being radar vectored for a night; IMC; ILS approach; ATC assigned an altitude. Pilot not flying read back 3;000. A few seconds beforehand the Left-Hand Wing Overheat annunciator illuminated and was being dealt with initially by the pilot flying. Pilot not flying reminded pilot flying to start descent to 3;000 FT. At 3;400 FT ATC advised that the assigned altitude was 4;000 FT. Pilot not flying responded 'correcting'. Quickly after [that] ATC issued a low altitude alert with the MVA of 3;400 FT. Pilot flying disconnected the autopilot to make for a quicker adjustment of aircraft pitch for the climb to 4;000 FT. Left-Hand Wing Overheat light extinguished and a normal ILS and landing were performed. The distraction of the wing overheat combined with an ATC hearback/readback error were the causing factors.


Second narrative: While being vectored for a instrument approach in IMC; a wing overheat caution light illuminated; at the same time ATC gave us an altitude clearance; I read back 3;000 FT but; during the descent to 3;000 FT; ATC called and gave us a low altitude alert with immediate instructions to climb to 4;000 FT; and we complied. The distraction of the wing overheat combined with an ATC hear back/read back error were the causing factors.


Synopsis: CE525 flight crew reports an altitude deviation causing a low altitude alert from ATC. The altitude assignment was misheard and readback incorrectly at the same time a wing overheat caution light illuminated.
Date: 201412
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There appears to be a disconnect between the NOTAMs information available to company dispatch and that available to the operating flight crews. I refer specifically to field condition information for enroute emergency diversion airports in Russia and China.Prior to our departure; dispatch confirmed that UHMA and UHMM would both be usable for enroute emergency diversion.  In updating that information enroute; I was informed that 'UHMA is closed on weekends from 0600Z on Fridays until 2100Z on Sundays and is not available as an emergency divert. 'The FAA/ICAO published NOTAM says; 'AD not available as an alternate outside AD operating hr.'  Typically; 'not available as an alternate' does not indicate that the airport is closed to emergency aircraft.In communication with dispatch; we received the following:  'It's not in the NOTAM.  We have a service that sends us a daily email updating the status of Russian airports. 'The information provided by this service does not appear to be directly available to the operating crews.  We see in this case; that the result was that the crew received incorrect information from dispatch regarding the UHMA field availability.  I note that I have used UHMA as an example; but the situation was similar for a variety of Russian emergency diversion airports.It would appear that dispatch has information regarding emergency diversion airport field conditions and field availability that is not included in the published ICAO NOTAMs. This information needs to be directly and readily available to the operating crews prior to and during the flight.




Synopsis: The Captain of a B777 utilizing far north Pacific routes advised that alternate airport availability NOTAMs provided by Dispatch; does not match with ICAO NOTAMs obtained enroute; which state that those airports are unavailable for alternate purpose. The reporter feels that information should be provided to flight crews along with the regularly issued weather and flight preparation data.