elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Design; Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Repeat discrepancy for 'spongy brakes; left seat; left pedal.' Multiple corrective actions 'bled brakes; ops satisfactory.' With the corrective action available to us; we thoroughly checked the brakes by pumping the brake while observing the pins on the brake pads. Cable snapped while checking. Corrosion of the cables should be inspected anytime a brake issue similar to this is reported as a discrepancy and/or an AD should be issued to check all cables more frequently.

Callback: The reporter confirmed that the brake cable broke because it was corroded. The cable runs from the brake pedal to the hydraulic unit which supplies the pressure to the brakes. The reporter told me that many of the Cessna 560 Citation V Model XLS have cables that have been found corroded; but this is the first one that he knew of that broke. The reporter confirmed replacing the cable fixed the spongy brake pedal.



Synopsis: C560XLS First Officer reported that the left brake pedal felt spongy. The cable snapped while pumping the brakes and checking the pins on the brake pads.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-9
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Ten minutes after departing [from a refueling stop] the engine RPM started to decay from 2;500 to 2;350. Adjusted mixture to rich and engine became rough and RPM fluctuated between 1;900 and 2;300 RPM. Found a likely landing spot on paved highway and set up glide and ran Engine Fail In-flight Checklist; changed tanks; boost pump on; mixture rich; throttle idle; at that point engine started to run better but not normally. I made initial contact with Center; on the flight following frequency I have used prior to starting approach to [the airport]. Controller answered. I informed him I was having engine trouble and declared an emergency. I told him I was planning on landing on the paved highway below. He initially asked for position and altitude; gave me a squawk and tried to locate us. Sometime later fuel and Souls On Board (SOB). He was unable to locate us and I gave him coordinates. During this time; I kept trying to get power from the engine; sometime during initial contact; after trying several combinations of throttle and mixture settings the engine started running normally. I suspected fuel contamination; and whatever was causing the problem passed through the system. After determining the engine was providing normal power; I informed the Controller; I was going to try to make an airstrip further [along my route. I was eventually able to climb up to 11;500 FT and continue to my destination; always with an airport in gliding range but no further problems occurred.]

Callback: The reporter states that he flew three hours to the fuel stop in question then ten minutes after takeoff the engine began to loose power. The engine analyzer indicated that the back two cylinders had no EGT with the others indicating normal. Once power returned to normal so did the EGT's and the flight was continued another three hours to destination at 11;500 FT with no problems. Fuel samples after landing indicated no contamination and two subsequent flights have been uneventful. This engine is equipped with a carburetor.



Synopsis: RV-9 pilot reports loosing power ten minutes after takeoff from a fuel stop. The engine continues to make power and a landing on a highway is delayed in hopes of landing at an airport. Before that can happen the engine begins to run normally again and the flight continues to destination.
Date: 201209
Aircraft: A320
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: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The left pack was selected off prior to flight to comply with the MEL deferring it as inoperative. Later; while in flight; we received an ECAM alert for a pack overheat on the inoperative pack. We were surprised to say the least. We complied with the ECAM procedures and monitored the inoperative pack and the overheat condition. As we were scheduled to continue on with this aircraft we sent a message to Dispatch refusing the aircraft for the next leg. On arrival to our destination; while at approximately 5;000 FT the Duty Flight Manager sent an ACARS message asking me to rescind my refusal and take the broken aircraft [notwithstanding the] inoperative yet overheating pack. As we were in sterile cockpit at the time we disregarded the message until we we're on the ground with the engines off and all checklists completed. I contacted the Dispatcher to see if he had authorized the ACARS message and he said 'no.' I then contacted the Duty Flight Manager to find out why he was pushing me to fly the broken aircraft. Then; as soon as I got off the phone with him; two local flight managers were at the aircraft to tell me to fly the aircraft. I politely spoke to them about the aircraft status and they left. This pilot pushing is unacceptable; especially violating sterile cockpit regulations and having two flight managers come to the aircraft.




Synopsis: An A320 Captain expressed his displeasure at being pushed by three flight managers to accept an aircraft which; on their previous leg; had received an ECAM warning for an overheat condition in the left air conditioning pack which had been previously deferred inoperative. As required by the MEL; the pack was selected off prior to and during the flight on which the overheat warning was received.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Rain; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Landed from IFR flight for fuel and update on weather for flight to home base. Upon rotation from runway; the engine started backfiring. With no remaining runway left; I called tower and said I was going to land on [a different runway]. They cleared me to land and I successfully landed and taxied to ramp. Repair station on field determined the problem to be with exhaust stack and muffler. Tower did call a fire truck out to the ramp however.While this may not seem to be that big of an occurrence; there is one major takeaway from this event. Mainly plan an IFR departure in low ceiling conditions carefully. I was very lucky because I was able to maneuver the aircraft at a low altitude on essentially an upwind on [departure runway] then base to final on [another runway] while maintaining visual contact with the terrain and the runway.Going forward when I depart IFR from an airport with a single runway; I will make sure I have enough ceiling and visibility to allow either a full pattern at sufficient and safe altitude back to the departure runway or execute a 180 degree turn back for landing.




Synopsis: The pilot of a PA28-180 reported an engine problem during takeoff toward IMC conditions. A low altitude return to the field was made in VFR conditions below the ceiling.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower N90
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I flew the Hudson River Exclusion route northbound at 1;100 feet past the Alpine Towers. I had my GPS map zoomed in to provide fine detail boundaries of the Hudson River and surrounding airspace. I turned east just south of the Tappan Zee bridge. I kept my GPS map zoomed in to ensure that I would not violate KHPN airspace. Once east of the HPN airspace I applied power to climb to my cruising altitude of 3;500 feet and then 5;500 feet. Since my GPS was zoomed for detail; it did not show the Class Bravo rings. This oversight resulted in my believing I was outside of Class B. It was not until another plane trailing me announced that they inadvertently flew up through the Class B floor did I realize that I climbed through the edge of outer ring of LGAs Class B airspace.Lesson learned. EFB's are a fantastic tool. However; as demonstrated above; they allow you to focus on such minute detail to the point where they can impact your situational awareness. Very much like the concept of target fixation. Since I have a panel mounted moving map and an EFB my practice will now be to keep one zoomed out if the other is zoomed in. This will provide the perspective needed to avoid a similar occurrence.




Synopsis: A small aircraft pilot operating on the Hudson River Exclusion route inadvertently violated LGA's Class B airspace when the GPS in use was set to a range that did not display the airspace boundaries.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IND.TRACON, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON IND
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach into IND on GIIBS3 arrival we experienced a near miss with unknown aircraft. Approximately 15 miles south east of Indianapolis we were vectored off the arrival to join the final approach course to runway 05 right. The first officer was flying the aircraft and I was setting up the approach by drawing the line. Just as I had finished air traffic control came back with traffic alert turn immediately left heading to 240. As I responded to ATC they were still talking and told us to continue turn to 220. Which I responded '220'. As 1st alert was given I saw a white TCAS aircraft directly ahead. The target was moving around as it approached us. I believe this was due to fact TCAS was trying to figure out where exactly the target was. It popped up approximately 5 miles in front of us showing -08. Within 2-3 seconds; it moved more and more into our path. I briefly heard 'traffic traffic' from TCAS. Target quickly turned red and showed -03 then 0 right on our nose. NO RA WAS GIVEN BY TCAS. I was looking the entire time to visually locate target to no avail. As red target passed thru us at 0 I was basically was waiting for impact. Never saw the target and there was no impact.




Synopsis: Captain described a possible NMAC on arrival into IND.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passing 100kts on takeoff roll; I noticed the flaps were set to 1+F instead of 2. As we were in the high speed regime and the speed difference was the same for v1 and vR and only 1kt different to v2; we continued the takeoff and delayed the rotation a few knots. I honestly don't know how I missed the incorrect flap setting other than this was the second flight of the day with an early departure. I'm also not comfortable at all with the new checklist. Before; I always had the performance takeoff page up when comparing the actual flap setting to the planned but now I don't always seem to be there. We are making calls at different and illogical times and the first officer stated he felt the checklist doesn't follow a logical flow as well for the Airbus.


Second narrative: We were still good for flaps 1 and the flaps 1 data rotation speeds were very similar; but had not been loaded into the performance page.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported taking off with flaps set incorrectly. Captain cited fatigue and new checklist procedures as contributing.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While on approach to Runway 10C there were some very distracting lights at what looked like far end of airport.  Changing color from red to white and others.  Really bright and 100's of feet horizontal.  They were 3 times as bright as any other lights on the field and caused confusion as to what and where they were coming from.  After landing it became clear that they were electronic billboard signs just on the East side of the airport; so close as to cause confusion that they might be on the field.  The next day I noticed they were on the building with signage of 'FASHION OUTLETS CHICAGO.'There needs to be a review to see if they are in compliance with regulations of lights close to airports?  I have seen this problem in a lot of areas that get these electronic billboards installed and either there is no brightness adjustment in the design and it stays full bright.  Or the adjustment is left full bright to catch attention without regard to drivers of cars or in this case airplanes.  At the very least; if adjustable; they should be required to turn them down.  Ideally; the signs should be removed or require less total light output by design.  I live in a town that has an ordinance against bright electronic billboards.  I have seen many that have a controlled light output based on ambient light so as not to be so glaring in given light conditions i.e. day/night.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported confusing; very bright multicolor lights off the end of ORD Runway 10C which were apparently non-dimmable advertising lights.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X departed Runway 18L on the RNAV and Aircraft Y was my departure off of Runway 18C. Aircraft X turned right instead of staying south toward my departing Aircraft Y. The Departure Controller noticed Aircraft X turning and immediately turned him southeast to avoid a possible collision. I have several recommendations to fix this. 1. This one is my fault I should have waited until I observed the turn before I switched my aircraft I admit the. Now due to the complexity of the ADW window I was focused on the 23 final waiting to launch my next aircraft. We need to have Local Control East hold on to their departures. Now that I have worked this operation which I feel will directly result in an aircraft accident one day; it seems like the Local Control East is doing less and should hold on to the departures to provide visual with my aircrafts. Local Control Center has too much going on to worry about an aircraft turning almost five miles away from the airport.2. We need to revisit noise abatement here at CLT and figure out a way to turn our departures off the deck away from each other. This is my second facility with simultaneous departures and the same problems happen here just like my old facility. A 210 heading off of [Runway] 18C is enough to turn away from the [Runway] 18L departures and still not be in the way of a [Runway] 18R or [Runway] 23 go-around;. A 150 heading with all east departures will help reduce the odds of an aircraft turning right. If they are a southbound aircraft RNAV is fine because at least the [Runway] 18C departures are turning west. 3. I believe we need to stop issuing RNAV to the fix from local control. I believe this makes the odds go up [with] the Controller saying the wrong RNAV fix or the pilot hearing the RNAV fix. We quit using it at my old facility after 6 months or so and the transition was very smooth and safe.




Synopsis: Controller reports situation where the pilot turns aircraft off of RNAV departure by mistake into the flight path of aircraft departing off its right.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower BFI
Second aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying with Instructor on PAPI for 14L at approximately 600 feet; well situated for landing; when I saw the Boeing Heavy on my right; it having come up behind us and to the right for parallel runway; and almost immediately; I felt huge wake turbulence. (I described it to pilot friend as herd of elephants stomping on right wing).  I was flying; Instructor was handling radio. We were at the end of the day after refresher training; something I do very regularly (approximately 2x per year. Plane lurched down dramatically and to the right.  Flight Instructor immediately took control. We were very close to ground pointed westward when pilot regained control and pulled it out.  ATC witnessed and later I spoke to ATC supervisor. Boeing has parallel runways; and we had not encroached on the approach for 14R.  There was a quartering tailwind; which I think caused the wake turbulence of the Heavy to drift over and down onto my plane. I didn't see the Heavy until right before turbulence hit. I knew it was in the general vicinity; but didn't know it was that close - it had been behind us and was on different radio.  We had hugged the shoreline prior to final approach because there was a plane at 1;200 feet not on radio circling Elliott Bay.




Synopsis: Cirrus pilot reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to BFI on a parallel approach with a Boeing Heavy that resulted in control difficulties at low altitude.