elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Ice/Rain Protection System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending on a reposition flight to 11;000 FT we encountered ice and received two caution messages: Wing anti-ice fail and Stabilizer anti-ice fail; followed shortly by the Warning message: Anti-ice fail. We verified that the valves had opened and they had; so the First Officer switched the anti-ice knob to ALL. I asked him to tell ATC that we needed to descend below the cloud layer; which was approximately 7;000 FT. The First Officer declared an emergency and requested an immediate descent. At the same time he was making his call it dawned on me what the problem was: during the 10;000 FT flow [checklist] the bleeds were never switched over from the APU to the engines. I switched the APU bleed off and the engine bleeds on. The anti-ice worked properly and all messages were extinguished. I told the First Officer to cancel the emergency and we remained at 11;000 FT. The entire event lasted no longer than approximately 10 seconds.I believe the First Officer missed part of his 10;000 FT flow due to task saturation climbing out. When we received the aircraft the GPS had just been written-up by the prior crew. We were filed a non-standard route. During our climb we received a message on the FMS indicating that one of the IRS's was out of range. We were trying to determine whether the FMS was navigating on course correctly; and we were also tracking short range.Being a relatively new Captain this was a reminder that I need to remain vigilant and not assume; but verify that tasks have been completed. I should periodically look over the cockpit assuring that all systems are configured correctly.


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


Synopsis: During descent in icing conditions the crew of an EMB-145 received multiple anti-ice fail messages; declared an emergency; and requested an immediate descent to lower altitude. The Captain then realized the anti-ice bleed sources were incorrectly selected to the APU and were then properly selected to the engines; restoring normal operation.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 7B2.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G 7B2
ATC / advisory: CTAF 7B2
Second aircraft: Super King Air 300
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Day was clear and wind was calm.  I was not sure which runway was active at 7B2 which is 14/32.  I did a radio check and listened to UNICOM 122.7 for other people approaching and heard another airplane call his intention for runway 14.  I was told previously that 14 was the runway preferred when the wind was calm at 7B2 by my flight instructor during complex operator training. I did my run-up and called my departure on runway 14.  There was another airplane on downwind for 14 and I also called that I had the traffic in sight.  I looked down and around to check for traffic and saw nobody else; so I made my departure.  As I took off and was climbing; I saw another airplane below near the ground to my right going the opposite direction.  I can only assume that he was landing on runway 32 and that I didn't see him.  It was a dark colored green; and the approach of Runway 32 faces a large green mountain so it might have been possible that I missed him because his color blended in with that mountain.  I have to maintain that I did not hear any radio call from this plane; and that both one other plane and myself had made very clear calls for using Runway 14.




Synopsis: A PA28R pilot reported an NMAC after departing Runway 14 at 7B2; a non-Towered airport.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Aircraft component: Altitude Alert
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Landing TEB on JAIKE arrival; ATC assigned direct JAIKE at 13;000 FT. I left frequency to obtain the ATIS; but had to listen to it 3 times to copy all the info due to the usual problem of frequency 'bleed-over'. Just as I came back to our primary frequency; ATC asked if we had checked on. The pilot flying replied 'yes' that we had to the Controller. At about that instant I noticed our position and altitude. JAIKE was just behind us and we were passing approximately 19;000 FT in a slow descent. ATC then turned us 20 degrees to the right and I noticed traffic passing 6 miles off our left 1;000 feet below that would have been a factor if not for the turn. A few seconds later ATC issued us 'direct ILENE at 13;000 FT. The Controller was quite busy and never mentioned anything about our mistake. I think in retrospect that the ATIS frequency bleed issue is a major cause of distraction for crews landing TEB. It takes an inordinate about of time to obtain at a very critical phase of the arrival procedure. I also realize that even when I am busy off-frequency I need to remain more aware of the entire situation.

Callback: The Reporter stated that the ATIS frequency in use was 132.85. The bleed over appeared to be from an Approach Control frequency; but he is not certain. Also; on that particular day there was solar flare activity which may have contributed to the poor reception; which even on a good day is not good. Crews arriving into TEB are aware of the issue and because they know ATC will be asking for the ATIS Code; they take the time to get it correct. That is a huge distraction and always takes one pilot out of the loop during a very busy period.



Synopsis: A Captain on the TEB JAIKE 3 RNAV failed to notice that the First Officer did not descend on the arrival because he was intently monitoring the ATIS; which was difficult to hear because of bleed over.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After about 10 minutes at the gate; the oncoming FO (First Officer) stated the left inboard main tire fuse blew and the tire deflated. Our flight was uneventful with normal braking departing ZZZ; Auto brakes 2 used on Runway XX; smooth touchdown in the Touchdown Zone; and normal braking to exit at [taxiway] in ZZZ1. We were an average to low weight. The temperature was approximately 91 in ZZZ and 86 in ZZZ1.




Synopsis: B737 MAX 8 Captain reported discovering the left inboard wheel assembly had blown the fuse and the tire had deflated and must be replaced.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Today; [an aerial demonstration team was] practicing for the air show. Their TFR significantly encroached on our airspace leaving us with no room for go-arounds. Aircraft X went around on his own and got VERY close to one of the [aerial demonstration team's aircraft]. I don't know how close; but if I were able to file an NMAC; I would.None of this was briefed to us. We had no idea what the procedures were supposed to be while this TFR was in effect. We were using Runway 29 for arrivals and Runway 21 for departures; but we had to figure that out for ourselves. We were playing completely by ear and pretty much just hoping to get through the demo. Two controllers worked well over two hours in position and one controller stayed late because he had no one to relieve him. The TFR also was not reflected in the NOTAMs. A TFR that didn't really affect us was [in the NOTAMs]; but the one that was in effect was not; at least to my knowledge.This seems pretty obvious. When something like an air show is imminent; the controllers should receive thorough briefings on the temporary procedures and be given the opportunity to express concerns and ask questions.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported an NMAC that was attributed to procedures that were not clear to the reporter relating to a TFR and go-around procedures.
Date: 201907
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight XXX arrived with a box with a bag tag and the stickers on the box clearly read 'Not to be loaded on passenger aircraft'. Cargo aircraft only.




Synopsis: Commercial Airline Ground Personnel reported unloading passenger flight with box labeled 'Cargo Aircraft only'.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was working Local Control and Tower CIC.  Aircraft Y was on final to Runway X and Aircraft X was ready to depart Runway Y.  I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff and issued a right turn heading 210.  The proper heading for the departure was 120; per LOA.  I transposed the numbers and missed my error on the readback.  After I observed Aircraft X start his turn; he began to enter a cloud layer and I switched him to departure.  A few moments later; I realized my error upon watching the radar.  I issued a traffic call to Aircraft Y on approach and he called Aircraft X in sight.  No TCAS resolution or CA alert were issued for aircraft proximity.I believe the only recommendations I could make to stop this sort of incident from occurring would be to develop Standard Instrument Departures at ZZZ; which I am not sure is feasible.  Also; I believe the COVID-19 staffing needs to be changed; and more personnel brought back to mitigate the lack of for control positions and lack of oversight.  (ZZZ is reverting to a more normal staffing schedule during Pay Period XX).




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported inadvertently giving an incorrect heading to a departing aircraft resulting in a conflict with an aircraft on final.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] looking for my feedback on borescope picture taken during Maintenance Planning inspection night before and signed of as 'no findings'. I responded that picture clearly shows cracks and since aircraft was already on its way to ZZZ. I indicated that we would need to take a look at it again and measure the cracks so that we can disposition properly once plane is back in ZZZ1. At the same time; I forwarded BSI (Borescope Inspection) picture to hardware owner so that he can provide feedback in the meantime; as AMM (Airplane Maintenance Manual) suggested to reach out to [owner] in case more than one crack is found on one blade (which was the condition in this case). His recommendation was to remove the engine upon landing in ZZZ. Since no spare engine nor engine change equipment was available at ZZZ; after discussing situation with Powerplant [personnel] and MX Control; decision was made to ferry fly the aircraft back to ZZZ1. Once aircraft was back in ZZZ1; engine was replaced and sent to the shop for a repair.




Synopsis: Reporter stated a Boeing aircraft's engine borescope inspection was signed off as 'no findings' when inspection photo clearly showed cracks.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Apparently Approach had coordinated to have Center take their airspace due to staffing issues. That information never made it to the supervisor or the controllers who were then surprised when Fargo called to give us the airspace. That sector is one of the most complex in the building with intensive flight training; multiple frequencies; non-radar areas; manual coordination required with Canada on all aircraft; CAN routes; and sequencing for an arrival.In fact; he wasn't even in the room for most of the operation. I came back from break to find a controller working combined sectors which had a lot of deviating and coordination with Canada required and no handoff position and no supervisor. I chose to get in to the handoff position and we were both super busy for well over an hour. Those sectors should not have been combined and the supervisor should have had a clue or at least pretended he cared. There was a degradation of service provided due to having 2 sectors non-radar; multiple arrivals into KFAR; multiple other arrivals into other airports; weather deviations; and non-radar. This is not the first time we have failed to have a heads up on Approaches closing. Clearly this issue needs to be coordinated in a better manner. It makes a difference.Tell the supervisors to keep in the area and not spend most of their time socializing with others in flight data or the other areas. Do not allow a sector that is busier than usual with working an approach control that involved working an extra 10'ish arrivals an hour to be combined with another sector when you have staffing to keep them split. Put in a Handoff position to take all the Canada coordination calls and the tower release/down time/inbound calls. Create a fool proof method of notification for important information such as airspace closures.




Synopsis: ZMP Center controller reported they had to unexpectedly take over TRACON Airspace due to staffing into a Center sector that was already combined.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generation Indicating and Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise we noticed an initial EICAS message fuel feed one fault followed shortly thereafter by an SPDA fault cyan message. We ran the QRH for the messages and while looking through the MFD synoptic pages noticed we had a transient activation of both AC fuel pumps while both ejector pumps showed off and on intermittently. While scanning the other synoptic pages we; noticed a loss of data for the buss tie contactors as well as AC bus 2; DC bus 2; and TRU 2; along with the intermittent APU start bus data loss; all illustrated by yellow dashed lines. Also; both engine bleeds; both FCV's and both Recirc fans showed off. During this time we lost control of the aft cabin and cockpit temperatures and it became very warm in the cockpit and cabin. After discussing the compound failures with Maintenance Control and Dispatch; we elected to divert and land flaps full because we would not have reversers per the QRH. The landing was uneventful with normal braking and nose wheel steering. After landing; the EICAS displayed ENG 1; 2 NO DISPATCH and CRG FIRE PROT FAULT. The aircraft accepted ground power and we were able to shut the engines at the gate.




Synopsis: An EMB170 had multiple electrical anomalies in cruise flight. The Crew diverted to a suitable alternate airport.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach to Runway XXC at ZZZ; we experienced a landing gear malfunction. On GS about 4 miles from the FAF; I requested the gear down to start the speed reduction from 210 kts to 180 kts. When the gear handle was placed in the down position; nothing happened. Three red lights appeared; but no other warnings. We cycled the gear handle with the same result.  A soft go-around was initiated and [advised ATC]. Fuel on board was 5.8. Side of Body was 111.Contact with Dispatch was established with a 'call me mayday' request. [Maintenance Control] assistance was requested to help with troubleshooting. Of note; communication was difficult as it was hard to hear them on the frequency. We switched radios to try to remedy. No help. I flew the plane and handled ATC. Captain coordinated with Dispatch; [Maintenance Control]; and the cabin crew and made the appropriate PAs to the passengers.Once we exhausted all options for an in flight remedy; the appropriate checklists were completed and a gear down-and-locked indication was achieved after the manual gear extend procedure was accomplished.  ARFF (airport rescue and firefighting) equipment was requested; and dispatch contacted ZZZ operations facilitating the anticipated tow-in to Gate XX upon landing as our nose-wheel steering was rendered inoperative after the manual gear extension.ATC assigned us Runway XXR and after landing; the aircraft was brought to a stop on the centerline.  The ARFF inspected the aircraft for any hydraulic leaks and we communicated via a dedicated control frequency. The APU was started; and engines were shut down. Tow-In checklist was completed; the gear pins were installed and we were towed to the gate. Block in fuel was 3.5.




Synopsis: A320 pilot reported a failure of the landing gear to extend normally.