elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flying under IFR and on a heading vector from SoCal to VNY at 5;000 feet. The Pilot Flying (PF) observed traffic on the TCAS that was approaching from about 10 o'clock position. The PF started the search for the traffic and alerted the Pilot Not Flying (PNF) the traffic was not in sight. The traffic got closer and a TA was received. PF continued to look for the traffic and without locating it the RA was received to descend. The PF initiated a descent and slight turn to the right to avoid the traffic.  As the RA was received SoCal alerted us we had traffic and to turn left. This would have put us in direct conflict with the traffic. The resolution commenced and the 'clear of conflict' was received. The RA resulted in about a 1;000-1;200 foot descent. The PNF made a radio call to SoCal to alert them of our RA. SoCal gave us a climb to 5;000 Feet and a turn left to a heading 330. The instructions seemed to be in direct conflict with 2 other targets. One at our approximate 12 o'clock and about 700 feet above us. The other at our 10 o'clock and approximately 600 feet above us. Both targets appeared to be within about 3 miles of our position.  The PF asked the PNF to query SoCal the instructions again. The PF stayed at 4;000 feet and started a shallow banked turn to the left. SoCal was busy and it was hard to get a word in. PNF asked twice for SoCal to repeat the heading. Finally the instructions were given again to expedite our climb to 5;000 and turn left to heading of 330. While in the climbing turn we received another TA from the traffic at our 10 O'clock position. The TCAS showed it 300 feet above us and slightly off our left wing. The PF looked out and saw an aircraft pass to our left and slightly behind us approximately 300-400 feet away from our aircraft; to our recollection. Neither of the 2 possible targets were ever pointed out to us. We were handed off to another controller where the PNF reminded that controller that we were climbing back to 5;000 Ft. / on a heading due to an RA. We were radar vectored onto the ILS for 16R at VNY. The crew could have tried to query ATC about the approaching conflict.




Synopsis: G200 First Officer reported NMAC on a flight into VNY and indicated ATC was not much help in situational awareness and mitigation.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
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: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection; Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During flight preparation at the gate in ZZZ; I received two HAZMAT NOTAC forms for items we would be carrying to ZZZ1. Oxygen cylinders and batteries I believe.  I made a mental note to call Dispatch to have remarks added to our dispatch release; but then I got distracted with other events (like servicing requests; weather planning; rushing); and forgot about the HAZMAT.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported transporting Hazmat cargo with incomplete required documents.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the R-side. Aircraft X was IFR [VOR1] direct to [VOR2] at 6;000. Aircraft X went into a 7;000 MIA at which point I issued a low altitude alert. Training was being performed on the D-side during the event. I was too casual today at work. I was not engaged in the operation which resulted in the event.




Synopsis: ARTCC Controller reported descended aircraft below the MVA.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ1.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ1
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On date; Aircraft X; while descending on the ZZZZZ3 arrival to ZZZ with both engines power set at about 70% we noticed the engine one oil temperature increasing to about 160 degrees C.  Captain was the pilot flying and first officer was the pilot monitoring. I took the radio from the PM and called for the QRH. We reduced the power to idle and we noticed the temperature slowly getting back into the green arc. Then while still at idle the temperature started to rise again; but this time at a faster rate and as it reached 205 degrees C and in accordance with the QRH we proceeded with an engine shut down procedure of engine number one.We discontinued the approach; requested priority handling; and requested  vectors towards ZZZ2; where the longer runways are more suitable for a single engine; flaps 20; approach.After running our single engine procedures we got cleared for the ILS X at ZZZ2; where we landed without further problems.The emergency vehicles where precautionary positioned by the RWY; and once cleared of the RWY they conducted a visual inspection of the aircraft.No visual damages were noticed so we continued to the gate and disembarked all the passengers.




Synopsis: Captain reported engine #1 over temperature on descent and elected to perform an in flight shut down of the affected engine. The Captain requested priority handling and was vectored to a new approach and a precautionary landing.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: Super King Air 350
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Super King Air 350 was level flight level 220 direct to T82. I had the data block in RADAR handoff status to Stonewall Low (H50) I waited until approximately 2 minutes from the common ZHU/ZFW boundary to call for a handoff. The Controller would not answer the land line. I stated over the land line that I was about to spin the aircraft. H50 still wouldn't answer the landline nor take the handoff; so I turned the aircraft to a 330 heading to contain the aircraft. I had pointed out the aircraft to Ednas Low (62) for that the aircraft flight entered the southeastern portion of their airspace. I call Sector 62 and informed them that I was giving the aircraft a 360 degree turn because H50 wouldn't take the handoff. I told my Supervisor of the situation he called Houston Center. I continued to make repeated calls to H50; but they still would not take the handoff or answer the land line. I called an adjacent sector to them Bergstrom low (H96) and ask him if he would ask H50 to take the handoff and give me a call. The Controller told me that they were training on H50 and that they were very busy. I asked my Supervisor if he would call Houston Center and ask the Supervisor to ask the Controller to give me a call for that I need to know what they wanted me to do with the aircraft. My Supervisor called; I then called H50 again this time someone answered the line. I told them the aircraft was on a 180 heading what did they want me to do with the aircraft. The told me to clear him direct T82. This situation is totally unsafe if they were that busy then the Supervisor should have given them help or at minimum the OJTI should have taken the sector from the Trainee. This has been an ongoing problem with Houston Center for years. No one will do anything about this. You simply can't spin aircraft like this it is a dangerous operation. What is it going to take two aircraft to hit before someone does something about this? To contain this aircraft I issued the following vectors turn right heading 330; 360; 120; and 180 while I had aircraft climbing out of DFW terminal area that I had to make sure they would be above this aircraft. There needs to be some kind of action taken against the controllers involved including Management. Or there needs to be some kind of recurrent training. The controllers in this area simply don't care and their Management won't do anything to make the controllers do their job.




Synopsis: ZFW Controller described an unsafe condition involving an adjacent facility that failed to take a handoff resulting in the circling of aircraft.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Fort Worth Center gave clearance for us to cross CQY vortac at or below 10;000 and to cross ORVLL intersection at 9;000. Both crew members set up proper guidance via VPath to meet these restraints and noticed two minutes out from CQY Vortac that the FMS calculations were wrong and we were going to be non-compliant at the altitude restriction at CQY VOR. Multiple attempts were made to contact Fort Worth Center to let them know we were unable to meet the altitude restriction with no reply. Fort Worth Center contacted us asking our altitude after passing CQY Vortac and we reported our actual altitude of passing 9;400 MSL to maintain 9;000 MSL for our altitude for ORVLL. I believe the cause of the problem is a bug in the Honeywell 6.0 software for the Gulfstream V aircraft which continually causes the Vpath to recalculate its vertical guidance deviating from what was set. As this is just an intermittent problem with the 6.0 software; I am going to discontinue use of VNAV function the Gulfstream aircraft until 6.1 software is installed on the aircraft.


Second narrative: No additional information.


Synopsis: G-V flight crew reports missing a crossing restriction during descent due to what they believe is a flaw in the FMS software.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BUR
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were being vectored by approach control on a southeast heading in VMC towards a 1865 ft tower located about 5 miles southwest of the BUR runway 33 threshold; which was the highest obstacle in the vicinity of the left hand visual traffic pattern for runway 33; when we were cleared for the visual approach to BUR runway 33. Both pilots noted the location of the tower and planned a left base leg so as to have both vertical and lateral separation from the tower. We started a descent from 4000 ft MSL down to 2000 ft MSL with the plan to remain at or above 2000 ft MSL until passing abeam the 1865 ft [tower] on a 4 mile base leg. As we made the left turn to the base leg in a descent to 2000 ft MSL; and with visual lateral separation from the 1865 ft tower; we received a GPWS alert. Since we were able to see the terrain and the tower; and we knew we had both vertical and lateral separation from the tower; we elected to continue the visual approach without performing a GPWS escape maneuver.Electing to accept a visual approach from a downwind leg with a tight 4 mile base leg to final knowing there was a 1865 ft MSL tower sitting on the ridge line about 5 miles south southwest of the runway 33 threshold.Runway 33 at BUR has no published instrument approaches. Instead of accepting a visual approach from downwind; it would have been better to have asked approach control to vector us to a visual straight in approach.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on a visual approach to BUR Runway 33. Crew decided to ignore the warning since they had terrain and obstacle tower in sight.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
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
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I operated as Pilot Flying (Captain) on flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1. During the takeoff; my airspeed read 80 KIAS. My First Officer said nothing. I responded '90 KIAS.' I was unclear what was going on. He said something like '80'. At this point we were above 100 KIAS. Weather was VMC. Rather than execute high speed reject; I continued takeoff. Going airborne; after getting gear up; I noticed I lost my flight director and auto throttles disengaged. I flew raw data. Rather than make the turn on the SID; I asked for straight ahead. Noticing several TCAS targets and unsure of the aircrafts' status; we elected to [advise ATC]. We retracted the flaps; left slats out; and I called for [personnel] to come forward to work with First Officer as we climbed to 4;000 ft. The First Officer and [personnel] ran (lvl 2) 'SEL ELEV FEEL MAN' and (lvl 2) 'SEL FLAP LIM OVRD' checklists. Both directed us to 'Non Alert' 'Airspeed Unreliable' checklist. This checklist isolated the (suspected) faulty component as CADC2. First Officer selected data off my side... normal indications. Since we had [advised ATC] and at the time of takeoff there was convective activity on the first third of our route; I elected to return to ZZZ. First Officer and [personnel] worked landing data; got ATIS; used 'divert' function of ACARS. We flew uneventful arrival and ILS to [Runway] XXL. Hats off to TRACON for excellent handling and reference airspeed calls. Also to ZZZ ARFF (Airport Rescue and Firefighting) for excellent response.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported that CADC2 failed during takeoff resulting in a return to departure airport.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am a student pilot that was performing my initial solo cross country.  I had safely completed the initial leg; and was returning to ZZZ.  On final; in the flare; I experienced an unanticipated crosswind gust; which resulted in the airplane dropping suddenly and causing a hard landing on the left main gear.  I applied full power to go around and re-attempt the landing.  I noticed that the airplane was yawing more than usual and recognized the airplane was operating in an abnormal condition.  Shortly thereafter; I heard a radio call that a landing gear was visible on the runway at which point I realized that I had lost my left main gear.  I continued to fly the traffic pattern under radio guidance from a CFI who was on the ground while I burned fuel and prepared for an emergency landing.  On final; under instruction from the CFI; I cut all fuel and powered down the aircraft; while continuing to fly the airplane to a landing. I landed on the right main gear and the aircraft settled to the ground ultimately skidding on in its belly as it made contact with the runway surface.  Due to the lack of directional control from only having the right main gear; the aircraft skidded left off the runway and came to rest in the grass left of the runway surface. I was able to exit the aircraft safely with no physical injuries. Following the event; I was interviewed by an Aviation Safety Inspector from the CITY Flight Standards Office and discussed the details shared above in its entirety.




Synopsis: Student pilot reported a hard landing which severed the left main gear; requiring an emergency landing.
Date: 201702
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower CYYZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After being delayed due to low ceilings in CYYZ we were finally descending via the Nuber1 arrival for RWY 15R. Shortly after receiving the clearance to descend to 11000 we were then assigned RWY 15L. Leaving between FL210 and 17000 or so we were given a left 360 degree turn for spacing and then direct to IKBAT - now on the transition to RWY 05. Now three approach briefs in the space of 15 mins. We then received two more left 360 degree turns while descending in heavy rain and moderate turbulence with a clearance to 7000. After the third 360 degree turn we were then transferred to the final controller and proceeded inbound for the ILS 05. The last several ATIS showed winds at approximately 090 to 100 at 5-10 kts and the final controller mentioned the same with an RVR of 6000+ for RWY 05. When cleared for the approach we were at 3000 to intercept the G/S and I noticed the winds had picked up to a 50 kt direct tailwind (F/O was flying by the way). We were assigned 160 kts and began to configure at approximately 2000 AGL. At 1500 ft the wind was a 30 kts direct tailwind and we had flaps 3 - IAS speed had increased at this point (Thrust Idle) to 170-175kts prohibiting final flaps just yet. The F/O did a great job aggressively trying to slow the A/C as we were concerned of getting a flaps 3 overspeed. As I knew from the ATIS and the controllers (TWR now) the winds were to die off very soon to less than 10 kts. Inside of 1000 ft we were just getting the airspeed to put in final flaps (Full) and were finally stabilized and on speed between 500-800 ft. The winds were now at the reported 090 at 8 kts or so inside of 500ft. The total wind shift was approximately 90 degrees (from direct tailwind) to a right crosswind - losing 40kts in the space of 1500 ft or so. The reason I elected to continue the approach was 1. Knowing about the wind shift and decrease as reported on the ATIS and from ATC. 2. Seeing a positive trend in the wind. 3. Being prepared for the missed approach (at 500ft) IF the winds and IAS stayed as they were earlier in the approach. We landed uneventfully in the touchdown zone and on speed - RWY 05 after breaking out before minimums.


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


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported an unstabilized approach to CYYZ due to shifting winds.