elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain; Turbulence
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon reaching 16;000 FT level off was initiated. The altitude alerter had been wrongly set to 17;000 FT. At that point rather than check with ATC; the plane was allowed to continue up to 17;000 FT; 1;000 FT high. There was no traffic in the area. ATC asked if 17;000 FT worked. After we replied 'yes;' the flight was continued at 17;000 FT. This was a last minute unscheduled medical flight at the end of several shifts in a row. The week preceding involved commercial flights out of state to transfer an aircraft from Boise to Moline. It also involved early and late flights with last minute schedule changes. There were repeated changes from day to night [operations] and no certainty of when time off would occur. While [legal] duty rest was always met; due to circadian rhythm upset; sleep was not always possible or productive. Air medical may need tighter definitions of when duty starts. Also there could be limits set on how often day to night shift changes can occur during a given time span along with what constitutes Part 91 after a 14 hour day then a trip back to base? Some pilots are subject to 24 hour 7 day a week call with duty starting when called and Part 91 when the patient is not on board; leading to shifts in excess of 18 hours.




Synopsis: Fatigue; as a result of erratic scheduling practices; may have contributed to an altitude deviation for a single pilot King Air ambulance Captain.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower BUR
Second aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We departed Runway 15 from BUR shortly after a 737 and encountered severe wake turbulence at around 2500 ft AGL on the initial climb out. This encounter caused us to roll left instead of turning right to follow the departure. During this event we were given instruction by BUR Tower to call Departure. When we contacted Departure we were told to turn right to a heading of 210 deg. We complied as soon as possible upon completing the wake turbulence escape procedure and at no time did we have any terrain or traffic conflict.  After the turn to join the SLAPP1 we were given a phone number to call the TRACON Supervisor.




Synopsis: LJ35 Captain reported a track deviation occurred following a wake turbulence encounter departing BUR in trail of a B737.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Second aircraft: Lancair Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Working light traffic.  Had just taken over the sector.  Aircraft X was southwest-bound at 8;500 headed to NYC area.  I observed a 1200 target moving in the same direction approximately 7 miles south of Aircraft X's position.  As they were headed in the same direction; no potential conflict appeared to exist; and I took no action.  I then observed the 1200 target make a sharp right turn; placing the target in conflict with Aircraft X. I issued the traffic to Aircraft X as 'just turned northwest; 8;500 feet about 10 seconds later; I determined the two targets were on a collision course and said 'Traffic Alert; Aircraft X climb 500 feet immediately.'  I chose a climb because I would expect the other aircraft to dive if he saw Aircraft X; and a turn would not be sufficient given proximity to separate the targets.  I observed Aircraft X comply with the instruction; and reported the aircraft in sight as I observed Aircraft X at 8;700. I observed the 1200 code aircraft at 8;600; and the targets merged with Aircraft X indicating 8;900. Aircraft X reported the other aircraft to be a Lancair.This happened because the 1200 code aircraft did not see Aircraft X.  Fortunately; I saw the conflict in time to take action to separate the aircraft.  This was a very close call.We need to reach out to local pilot groups and encourage them to get flight following.  If I had been talking to the 1200 code aircraft; I could have taken action much sooner to prevent these aircraft from getting so close to each other.




Synopsis: Boston Center Controller reported a Near Mid Air Conflict between a VFR aircraft under Center's control and a VFR aircraft not under ATC control.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just after departure during aircraft cleanup; we received a complex clearance with direct-to fix; speed restriction; and altitude assignment. As I was selecting the airspeed; we encountered significant wake turbulence and I guarded the controls; subsequently missing the altitude assignment while we searched for the fix. We eventually leveled at 5000 [feet] per the SID when ATC reissued the FL190 clearance mentioning that he thought he had passed it [to us] earlier. We received vectors for the climb and continued without further incident. I should have prioritized the altitude setting and queried the controller when we reached 5000 feet since I had a feeling that we may have missed it.


Second narrative: We departed DCA and on the climb out were given a clearance with multiple instructions; a speed restriction; a fix to go direct to; and an altitude. At about this same time; we hit some wake turbulence that surprised us. The First Officer (FO); the pilot flying; first guarded the controls while we went through the wake; then adjusted the speed; and then we were looking for the fix in the box that we were told to go direct to; at first I must have passed it in the MCDU. I couldn't find it and had to refer to the SID on my iPad to see which fixes it was between. I then found it in the MCDU and we started going to the fix. By this point I had forgotten that along with those clearances we were also given a climb to FL190; my FO had never heard that part of the instruction in the group of instructions we were given at once. It wasn't until ATC queried us about why we were not climbing to FL190 that I remembered the climb. We were still at 5000 [feet]. We were given vectors for the climb and there was no further incident. I should have made sure the altitude was set before anything else; but had been distracted by the unexpected wake turbulence.


Synopsis: E175 flight crew reported failure to climb to assigned altitude when they were distracted by a wake turbulence encounter departing DCA.
Date: 201703
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: When ground crew was ready for pushback they announced to crew to 'release brakes because we need to pull you up on the tug.' This was a newer model tug in where the aircraft is pulled on to a hydraulic plate by an attached strap to the nose gear. While this request certainly makes sense; it breaks with pilot SOP of only releasing brakes when a clearance has been received.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a contradiction from standard operating procedures when asked to release the brakes prior to push clearance to facilitate use of a new style tug.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working sector 65 (340B999) with quite a bit of weather and LAX 20 MIT. Aircraft X was at FL390 filed BLH.J65.PXR...; putting them on a route due west of PHX traveling eastbound. Over KOFFA intersection; the pilot reported passing a balloon at about their altitude. They said it was a scientific balloon with a payload. They didn't see it until they were passing it and said they passed it very quickly. They said they were close enough to it that they could actually see the lanyard extending from the balloon to the payload. They estimated they passed within 1000 feet of the balloon. I vectored everyone else south of the balloon's reported location. I had another aircraft heading to a fix south of KOFFA and they said they saw the balloon about five miles away at about FL365; putting it in about the same location of KOFFA. No one else saw the balloon; but I probably vectored about half dozen aircraft south of KOFFA since the wind was heading northbound. I was fairly busy with weather deviations; though I abandoned trying to get the 20 MIT to LAX since I was busy and none of the flows were working anyways. When I told the FLMs (there were two; one being relieved); they said they knew nothing about it. I assume they reported it to the OM to do an MOR; but I didn't hear anything again after I left.I'm not sure what the FARs say about balloons; but notification into the PCA should be a prerequisite. If it isn't; the FARs need to be changed.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller reports of a balloon sighting reported by a pilot. Controller issues unknown traffic and tries to avoid the area with the balloon for other traffic. Controller reports information to the Front Line Manager.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Manuals; MEL
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was dispatched from ZZZ while ZZZ was experiencing frost/icing conditions. Even the Captain of the flight mentioned aircraft being deiced; yet the aircraft was flown with an MEL that restricted flight during icing or forecast icing conditions.




Synopsis: Aircraft with MEL restriction prohibiting flight into known or forecast icing conditions was dispatched to airport experiencing icing conditions.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SKBO.Airport, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center SKED
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
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: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: During the Arrival preparation; I went to set up the Engine Failure on Missed Approach FMS pages and discovered that apparently the most recent change to the Jeppesen deleted the setup instructions and also changed the engine out procedure. Upon review of the FMS; I saw that the old Engine Out (EO) Departures were still in the database.Being an 'old-school' kind of guy and because I frequently fly to SKBO; I had a paper copy of the latest EO procedures in use prior to the Jeppesen change. Since the FMS did not have the new EO procedures; I chose to use the FMS EO procedure along with my paper charts. It appears as though the Jeppesens were updated prematurely; so my only suggestion to prevent this would be to confirm that the Jeppesen update aligns with the FMS update before publishing a change.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported a discrepancy between the engine out procedure for SKBO depicted in the FMS with the published Jeppesen engine out procedure.
Date: 201605
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: ELB / ELT
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On an IFR flight; whenever we transmitted on 133.600 MGhz; our ELT would start going off. Even though the ELT transmits on 121.500; the signal was so strong it could be heard on all frequencies on both of our aircraft radios and a handheld radio that I had. Before we realized the ELT was blocking all our radios; we squawked 7600 because we could no longer hear ATC. Once we realized the ELT was causing the problem; I reset it and re-established contact with ATC. Every time we had to transmit; the ELT would sound off again; forcing me to reset it over and over. Finally when we got transferred to a different approach; the ELT stopped causing problems.I called our maintenance and they said that once in a blue moon; transmitting on certain frequencies causes the ELT to trigger. On our return flight we once again had to talk to center on 133.600 but the ELT did not sound off this time.

Callback: The reporter stated that the ELT sounded off only when he keyed the mic and it affected all the radios in his aircraft only. The only way he was able to communicate using frequency 133.600 was to use the reset button on the ELT. The reporter stated he communicated with other aircraft and they did not hear any interference. The reporter stated that he did not know the brand of the ELT he was using. He also stated that Maintenance checked it out and could not find any discrepancy with the unit.



Synopsis: A Diamond DA-40-180 pilot reported that while flying whenever they transmitted on frequency 133.600 MGhz (Atlanta Center) the Emergency Locator Transmitter would start going off blocking all frequencies.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B LAX; Class D SMO
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Using the Mini Route Northbound transition over LAX; was handed off by Northrop/Hawthorne Tower to LAX Tower. LAX cleared me into Los Angeles Class B and told to report overhead. Contacted LAX overhead and received 'Thank you'. Expected a hand off to SMO but never received a hand off to SMO Tower from LAX Tower. I entered SMO Class D before I was able to contact SMO Tower; which I did but only after entry on the SMO 128 radial as prescribed in Mini Route Northbound instructions. There is only about one nm separation between LAX and SMO Class D.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of using the Mini Route between SMO and HHR airport. He does everything correct; but LAX Controller does not hand aircraft off to SMO Tower.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cylinder
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was out for a local flight for pleasure at about 2500 ft. MSL in cruise when my engine quit on me. I set up to land on a local beach called ZZZ tower and advise him of my situation I then tried for a restart and was successful and climbed to about 2800 MSL while returning to the airport and about 5 minutes after my first failure the Rotax 503 2 stroke quit on me again I was unable to start it again and landed in a polo field 8NM east of ZZZ. There was no damage to the aircraft or on the ground and No injury. I took the engine off today and inspected it and found scoring on the cylinder walls with piston damage. My intentions are to send the engine out and have rebuilt.




Synopsis: A single engine aircraft experienced engine failure two times. The pilot was unable to restart after the second loss and landed in a polo field. He stated that there was no damage to the aircraft.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Service/Access Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I operated Aircraft X. When I had shown up to the aircraft the FO (First Officer) was already at the aircraft. The FO had the aircraft powered up and had started the preflight duties. During the before start checklist it was acknowledged that the preflight was completed. The FO did not indicate that anything appeared abnormal during the preflight. Before the pushback the ground personnel said all secure below; FOD walk complete; steering disengaged; standing by for parking brake. The ground personnel did not report any panels that were open. Some point above sterile we heard a thump noise. We then called the flight attendant to ask if everyone was okay. The flight attendant indicated everything was fine. We checked the EICAS and all the engine instruments were in the green. We then checked the MFD pages and everything was normal. We preceded onto the destination as there was nothing to indicate any abnormality. We have no way of knowing if this was related to the latches underneath the engine coming open. When we had arrived to the gate the ground personnel had told us that there was two latches underneath the engine hanging down. The two doors open underneath Engine Number 1 was the engine oil service door and the air turbine starter access panel. Me and the FO proceeded outside during the walk around to look at the access panels underneath the engine and relayed the information to Maintenance. The access panels had also caused holes in the engine cowling.The cause was the access panels underneath Engine Number 1 came open during the flight. During the preflight during before departure nothing was noticed abnormal.A thorough preflight was done before the flight. Nothing out of the abnormal was indicated by the FO or the ground crew. A thorough preflight was accomplished and should before every flight. No other suggestions at this time.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that the access panels underneath one of the engines came open during the flight. Postflight inspection revealed that the open panels had made holes in the engine cowling.