elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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: Training was in progress at the FARMM/MALTA (74/77) sector. Departure traffic from C90 was a little unusual; where they were being vectored into the arrival sector (FARMM-74) before being turned back into the departure sector (MALTA-77). There were no arrivals into ORD so it really wasn't much of a factor. Trainee gets a call from RFD approach asking for control on Aircraft X. This is when the data block for Aircraft X populated on our scope at 12000. The aircraft was around the FYTTE waypoint at 12000 and our altitudes are 11000-FL230. From what I can assume is that C90 also vectored that departure to the North; just like all the other aircraft; and climbed the aircraft to 12000; which is FARMMs airspace. Had the aircraft stayed in the departure sector; it never would have been a factor because MALTA owns 13000-FL230.C90 needs to be more aware of where they are vectoring aircraft and what the altitudes are in the surrounding sectors.




Synopsis: ZAU Center Controller reported that a C90 TRACON Controller climbed an aircraft into the Center's airspace without coordination.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Mentor/Turbo Mentor (T-34)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Elevator ControlSystem
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During flight control check prior to taxi; elevator control was found to be binding and would not move forward of the neutral position. Airplane had recently (within the last 15 flight hours) come out of maintenance (avionics upgrade). Mission was cancelled and airplane put into maintenance for troubleshooting and repair.

Callback: Reporter discovered that a tool left behind after avionics work had migrated into a position that it was interfering with the elevator system.



Synopsis: T34 pilot reported binding in the elevator system during ground control check.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-30 Twin Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D BFI; Class E S46
ATC / advisory: CTAF BFI
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [I was] flying southbound just southwest of Boeing Field's Delta airspace when southbound highwing plane passed just beneath me. I did not see it until just as it passed under my left wing. I waited to see it pass out on the other side but did not see it. I was concerned that it may be maneuvering rather than in straight and level flight and took evasive action via a turn to my left back to a northbound direction while looking for the traffic. I never did see it again; but I may have inadvertently entered Boeing Field's Delta airspace without communication during my turn to avoid the traffic. Attitude estimated at 2;400 MSL but may be a couple of hundred feet either side of that as well. I was looking for traffic forward and to my side; but not approaching from my rear quarter. It was approaching me from my rear quarter and I should have been very visible to the other aircraft inasmuch as I was in front of it. I do not know how to prevent this type of encounter.




Synopsis: A PA-30 pilot experienced an NMAC with a same direction high wing aircraft that passed 200 FT below the Piper.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pilot Seat
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During takeoff roll; FO (First Officer) seat became unlatched horizontally; causing FO to slide aft. As pilot monitoring; I assumed control of the aircraft and steered us back to runway center line until FO was ready to assume control again. Seat not properly locked horizontally. Latching mechanism possibly in need of adjustment. Double-checking seat lock with a good 'shove' prior to departure. Also closer maintenance inspection of seat latches may be warranted.




Synopsis: Captain reported assuming control after First Officer's seat slid back and prevented him from reaching the flight controls.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GQO.VORTAC, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small UAS; Multi Rotor
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was doing drone test flights over water at Soddy Daisy Park in Soddy; TN which is along Lake Chickamauga. Filed a flight plan with Airmap which saw no potential violations of airspace and environment.  Flew for approximately .4 hours.  While on sight; I checked Google map again and it had the area titled as a bird sanctuary.  I shut down the drone and switched to handheld recording.




Synopsis: UAS pilot learned they were flying near a bird sanctuary and landed as a precaution.
Date: 201907
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Second aircraft: Piper Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During final for Runway XX at ZZZ; my instructor and I both noticed a Piper single engine to our right that appeared to be at pattern altitude on downwind; yet the pilot was not using radios as we monitored and announced our positions on the CTAF. The Piper would have been flying a left downwind for Runway XY; which was not the correct runway at the time; and therefore would be landing with a tailwind. I was concerned that the Piper might impede us as we were planning on executing a touch and go. Upon touching down; full power was applied to takeoff again; and only a moment later it was clear that the Piper was turning on final for Runway XY which was exactly head-on to our position as we were still on the runway preparing to takeoff. Realizing that we had no choice but to abort the takeoff and perform severe evasive action; power was cut completely and full brakes were applied while almost losing control to make the last taxiway we would have been able to exit prior to the Piper landing. The pilot was coming in to land like nothing was going to stop him and also never used the radios; convincing us he was in an emergency. We taxied to the FBO and waited for the Piper pilot to talk to him. My instructor spoke to him and he stated that he was not in any kind of emergency and admitted he saw us on the runway. His reasoning for not performing a go-around upon seeing another plane on an active runway was that he thought we were simply exiting the runway and not going to takeoff; he also claimed that he was at the wrong airport by mistake and was not using the correct radio frequencies and weather information; which would explain why he came in to land with a tailwind on the wrong runway. From my instructor's estimate; had we not exited the runway when we did and/or not aborted takeoff; he would have very likely made a head-on impact with our plane based on our position on the surface and his glide path. The Piper pilot clearly had no business forcing us off the runway in such a dangerous way and seemed to lack common sense and proper judgment by refusing to perform a go-around despite the runway being in use and assuming the actions of another plane with which he did not have radio communication. Human error was certainly a factor in this occurrence.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that an aircraft not on CTAF approached to land on the wrong runway; forcing them to take evasive action.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 50
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were landing on 28R. Shortly after touchdown; Tower cleared a regional jet for takeoff on Runway 1R. We applied max braking and stopped prior to the intersection of 28R/1R. Controller advised us not to stop on an active runway. During follow up phone call; no indication was given by ATC that this was a problem. I was told this is standard procedure for SFO.




Synopsis: Corporate jet landing Runway 28R at SFO stopped short of Runway 1R when hearing ATC clear an aircraft for takeoff on Runway 1R.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Torque Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise portion of flight; the enging torque indication began malfunctioning; giving erratic readouts that ranged from 0 PSI to 70 PSI; causing red and amber Engine Torque CAS messages; both visual and aural. At one point; amber X's displayed on the engine torque display; meaning torque indications were unreliable. All other engine instrument indications were normal throughout the flight. Only Engine Torque was affected. The crew referenced the QRH once the Red Engine Torque CAS remained on and the Engine Torque displayed 70 PSI. The QRH calls for a reduction in PCL and to land as soon as possible. The crew decided to divert to the next closest airport. Once the decision was made to divert; the passenger was informed of the diversion. The PIC contacted the [corporation] on the SAT Phone to inform them of the decision to divert to allow scheduling more time to find a recovery aircraft. The engine torque display continued to cycle from 0 PSI to 70 PSI throughout the descent and landing. The White Engine Exceedance CAS displayed after landing.




Synopsis: The pilot of a PC-12 reported a malfunction of the engine torque indication that resulted in a diversion to a nearby airport.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AIO.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G AIO
ATC / advisory: CTAF AIO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed ZZZ direct to AIO to attend a fly-in with one passenger. I communicated 10 miles northeast of AIO that I would enter the left downwind for runway 02. Aircraft Y pilot reported 6 south of AIO for a straight in approach to runway 02. A couple minutes later I communicated to the Aircraft Y pilot that I was entering the downwind to runway 02 and would land after. At this time Aircraft Z reported 5 miles northwest and would enter the downwind to runway 02. Aircraft W reported 8 to the west of AIO and would overfly the field before entering the downwind to runway 02. I again reported on the left downwind to runway 02. Not more than 20 seconds later my passenger pointed out Aircraft Z; which passed slightly behind us from the right and slightly below us. I took evasive action to avoid the aircraft and exited the pattern to the west.I reentered the pattern behind Aircraft W. Aircraft W pilot extended his downwind and eventually turned onto the upwind without landing. I suspect he thought I would overtake him and land despite me communicating that I would follow Aircraft W and land after him. Unsure what Aircraft W pilot would do; despite communicating on CTAF; I continued to follow Aircraft W through the entire pattern. The Aircraft W pilot eventually turned onto a 2 mile final on his second circuit and landed. The pilot exited 4500 down the 5000 runway. Shortly after Aircraft W pilot exited the runway I was able to land without incident. There was a lot of traffic at the airport due to the fly-in. I arrived at a particularly busy time. Despite communicating on the radio multiple times; a mid-air collision almost occurred. Based on the report of Aircraft Z being 5 miles out as I entered the pattern; I had thought that it was no factor. Aircraft Z was not in the position that it had reported on CTAF. If I don't avoid fly-in's entirely in the future. I will ensure that I communicate more directly with each pilot that could create a conflict. I made the mistake of trusting where the pilot said. His aircraft was also positioned in a location that was not visible from the pilot's seat of [my aircraft].




Synopsis: GA pilot reported several airborne conflicts and a near-mid-air-collision while entering the pattern at AIO CTAF airport.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VNY.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D VNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT; Tower VNY
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was cleared for IFR departure at VNY; after having had three larger aircraft (business jets) cleared for departure before me.The controller reminded me about wake turbulence avoidance.  I made sure to lift-off in accordance with wake turbulence avoidance procedures.  While on initial climb-out; I picked a vector that should have been offset from the business jets; but I clearly chose incorrectly.I hit significant wake turbulence and focused 100% of my attention on keeping the aircraft from rolling over.When the controller from SoCal came on the radio to tell me I missed the turn to 210 and was south of where I should be; I was shocked and corrected immediately.I know I should have declined the clearance and asked for more time for wake turbulence avoidance; but I thought there had been enough time.  Clearly I was wrong; and lesson learned.I would also suggest that when controllers are clearing small planes for departure after larger jets; if there is to be a SID followed; that they wait some additional hold time.




Synopsis: Single-engine Piper pilot reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of a business jet departing VNY that resulted in a course deviation.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A320 procedure has PF (Pilot Flying) arm spoilers for landing. It has been my experience that this swapping who arms every leg results in far too many errors. I personally have forgotten in the area of 2-3% of the time. My FO's (First Officers) have forgotten more than 10%. The error is always trapped by other crew-member and we have the ECAM to back us up; but that's not the point. The procedure is faulty. In [many] years of flying [many aircraft makes and models]; I cannot remember one single instance of Captain forgetting to arm spoilers. Captain arms pre T.O. every leg; why should this be any different? This also is important for airline fleet standardization. As pilots swap aircraft; and that's happening at an alarming rate now; the procedure between fleets should be has harmonized as we can possibly make it. On that dark and stormy night we don't need another LIT incident.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported the need for procedural standardization as a result of failure to arm the spoilers for landing.
Date: 201511
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
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: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
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: At a cruise altitude of 34;000 feet and just prior to our top of descent point; the First Officer (FO) recognized a decreasing oil quantity situation with our number two engine.  I used ACARS to send a [message] to Dispatch; turned on seat belt sign and called the Purser to inform her of the impending situation. ACARS returned with a frequency for contact as the FO took over flying duties. [Maintenance] joined the call and we discussed what we should do. We decided to operate engine at idle. The First Officer asked for a lower altitude. As we were approaching the top of descent point; the oil quantity continued to decrease to 3.5 and we decided to shut the engine down to prevent any further damage. I took over the flying duties; as the FO completed the engine shut down and single engine drift down check lists. Again communicated with the Purser. We did not prep the cabin; but asked her to do a quick review as we'd be landing shortly. The rest of the approach and landing was uneventful. Well; as can be with one engine.


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


Synopsis: An A320 flight crew reported an inflight shutdown of the number 2 engine following a loss of oil quantity.