elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMU.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D MMU
ATC / advisory: Tower MMU
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute to ZZZ from [home airport] about 20 minutes out. PIC smelled something burning and immediately did a 180 for home. Called tower at [home airport] and received landing instructions. At that time a little smoke was noted from under the panel. Close to runway 23 at MMU I opted to call them and land there. I asked MMU tower to notify [home airport]. The gear would not lower. The breaker had popped and the smoke stopped. I pumped the gear down and landed on Runway 5 at MMU. Firemen met me at the FBO at which there was no AP. The gear was down and locked; of course; and the smoke gone. When the heated area under the panel cooled down (about an hour); I opted to fly the aircraft to [home airport] 5 minutes away with the gear down and locked. The short flight was without incident and the plane is in the shop for repair. I have flown for 50 years and felt comfortable with the decision to divert to MMU and to take my plane home safely.




Synopsis: C182RG pilot detects electrical fumes about 20 minutes after takeoff and elects to return to the departure airport. Visible smoke is detected and the decision is made to land at the nearest suitable airport. The gear would not extend normally due to a tripped landing gear circuit breaker and is pumped down. With the circuit breaker tripped the fumes clear and the reporter elects to fly back to his home airport with the gear extended.
Date: 201512
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZHN
ATC / advisory: Center ZHN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft just took radar handoff from sector 10 and aircraft checked in climbing.  Aircraft was observed turning south bound.  I observed the aircraft about 1 mile west of the flight plan route after the turn climbing thru 114 on the way to cruise altitude but in the 120 MVA area due to the deviation west of course.  I advised the aircraft that he was right of course but did not issue a low alt alert as they were already climbing thru 120 and issued a heading of 180 as the aircraft climbed thru 120 above the MVA.  The crew then advised me that they were on a 180 heading and then said that they were direct to a waypoint which is not on their flight plan.  I called their next sector and asked them if they had issued a clearance to the waypoint and they confirmed that they did not.  I think the pilot may have been anticipating a turn toward the waypoint and did so in advance of a clearance there by violating the 120 MVA over Haleakala.I'm not sure; this was more of a pilot action situation.




Synopsis: A ZHN Controller reported an aircraft deviated from the filed route while climbing to an enroute altitude and violated the ZHN Haleakala 12;000 foot MVA. The Controller did not issue a Low Altitude Alert.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Climb
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Cleared via the RUGGD 2 RNAV SID. Maintain 230 KTS. Cleared to takeoff almost immediately behind a B757. Calm winds. We were heavy enough that 230 KTS was barely above green dot speed (min safe speed for an Airbus). Encountered up to moderate wake turbulence. Significant enough that I couldn't maintain altitude let alone climb and slightly descend at times to maintain a safe speed. No way to climb above it based the slow climb speed and being a heavy A321. Continued off and on until almost BUBBY waypoint. Eventually asked for a slight left upwind heading but it helped only a little.ATC clearing us to takeoff too close behind a B757. 230 KT demanded climb speed. We didn't demand a takeoff delay behind the B757 even though both aircraft are 'large'. We also didn't demand a higher climb speed.A B757 is still a hazardous aircraft to take off behind. Even our ADS-B system labels them as a 'high vortex' wake as opposed to simply 'large'. The FAA needs to re institute heavy wake separation behind B757s instead of cramming in more departures by deciding a large behind a 757 doesn't need any wake separation. I will be asking for at least 30 sec after liftoff or at least 1 minute after brake release when taking off behind a B757 from here on. The FAA should also be aware that an A321 is not the best performing aircraft.

Callback: Reporter stated action is needed to increase separation behind B757 aircraft.



Synopsis: A321 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence departing SLC in trail of a B757. Captain suggested that increased separation should be used behind the B757 type aircraft.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While boarding; a young woman sat in the co pilot seat.  We talked while the other passengers were boarding. She asked me if I had ever had problems with someone being; 'naughty' in the co pilot seat.  I asked her to clarify her question.  She asked if anyone touched the controls.  I explained that post 9/11; there is zero tolerance for anyone touching the controls and if someone did; I would have to report them to the police.During the taxi out she took out her phone and started to take a picture of herself with her hand on the yoke.  I said; 'No!' loudly and moved her hand.  I told her do not touch the controls.She sat quietly for the next 30 minutes or so but then as we were crossing the shoreline [nearing our destination]; she again grabbed the yoke with her left hand and tried to take a picture with her phone in her right hand.  I swatted her hand away again.  As we approached [destination]; I called in range to the gate and asked that a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) meet my plane because a passenger has grabbed the controls twice.  The ops agent assured me that he had called.I pulled up the the gate and saw several people standing by the double doors.  I assumed one or more were police officers.The passengers disembarked and I followed behind; scanning for the LEO.  There was no one.  I went through the gate doors and looked there.  Then I went to baggage claim and looked there.  There were no police officers.  After that; I rushed to our ticket counter to see if they were waiting there.  Again; there was no one.  I asked an employee for the manager and she said he was in his office.  I found him there and asked where the police were.  He was not aware of the situation.  Two officers showed up about 5 min after I arrived at the manager's office.  They said they got the call but had gone to the wrong airplane.I should have waited to pull into parking until I was sure the LEO was there.




Synopsis: A twin engine piston pilot reported a passenger grabbed the controls multiple times after being told to stop and asked for Police to meet the flight.  However; upon landing the Police went to the wrong gate.
Date: 201602
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft was on departure behind an airliner. Tower cleared [us for] takeoff with caution wake turbulence. Encountered turbulent air on takeoff below 1200 ft. Aircraft may [have] deviated laterally during initial climb out. Contacted departure who on initial contact gave a left turn out on heading.




Synopsis: C680 pilot reported a possible track deviation on departure due to a wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: IAH departures off Rwy 15L/RIAH arrivals to Rwy 27;26L; 26RI was working the South Departure section. I climbed Aircraft Y too early through the wake turbulence of an arriving Heavy Aircraft X above me on the downwind. I was not aware of the event and uncharacteristically missed the Heavy completely. This triggered an electronic event and I was advised of my wake turbulence bust the following week. I was delayed in writing this report because of the partial government shutdown.It is inexplicable how I missed this. My focus was not there.Stay focused all the time and realize your mind can wonder quickly when you are worried about things outside of your control.




Synopsis: Houston TRACON Controller reported climbing an aircraft too close through a heavy jet's wake turbulence due to distractions.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After takeoff we delayed our Tower assigned turn to 120 until reaching1;000 ft. per the company Ops pages. We received a RA (TCAS resolution advisory) at about 1;000-1200 ft. We responded to the RA. Informed the Tower immediately; they did not acknowledge our report and switched us to Departure. After we were cleared of the conflict we noticed an aircraft on the MFD 400 ft. above us. The Tower Controller cleared us for take off with a turn to 120 before we reached the runway; suspect the departure corridor was not clear. Better communication between flight crew and ATC; about traffic awareness in the vicinity of the airport.


Second narrative: Departed RWY XXR ZZZ; per company pages started right turn to heading 120 assigned by ATC. Immediately received an RA 'monitor vertical speed' we were climbing at about 1500'/min and v/s (Vertical Speed) tape showed we needed to limit climb to about 200'/min. We pitched over immediately; shortly thereafter we got 'clear of conflict'. All this happened between about 1;500 feet AGL and 3;000 feet. After the RA was complete I noticed traffic on the ND (Navigation Display) about 400 feet above us and slightly behind us. During the event Tower handed us off to Departure; we told him we were responding to an RA. Without any comment he repeated the hand-off to Departure.We were following our assigned clearance.  We do not know who the other aircraft was or if they had deviated from their clearance. It all happened very fast at a busy phase of flight. Pull the [Quality Assurance] data for this flight and ATC records to see what caused this event. I believe we got close to this other aircraft but I don't know why. I think it's worth investigating.


Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain Flying A321 aircraft reported NMAC after takeoff.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain called in to report that they had [notified ATC] upon landing of a very; very strong burning odor so much so that he (Quote 'Thought the aircraft was on fire'). He stated the emergency equipment fire department rolled trucks and were currently on the aircraft with the local maintenance crew looking over aircraft and especially in the E&E compartment; I advised Maintenance Control and they requested to speak with the Captain so I transferred call to them.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported flight crew notification of a B767 burning odor event.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MMUN.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: ELB / ELT
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I dispatched a flight from MMUN. This aircraft had MEL 25-61-01A which is a portable ELT. This particular MEL states 'May be inoperative provided no Extended Overwater operations are conducted.' Under Operation Procedures for the MEL; it further states 'Aircraft may NOT conduct extended overwater operations; however it may be eligible for limited overwater operations. In order to comply with this MEL; the flight must be routed in a way so it does not exceed 30 minutes flying time in still air with one engine inoperative; or 162 NM from the nearest  shoreline; whichever is less. I dispatched the flight. This route did not comply with the MEL and I; nor the flight crew; caught this error. I made the assumption that the aircraft was allowed to fly the standard route based on the fact that it had already flown with that MEL; and after I had spoken with the Safety Officer; confirming that it only restricted ETOPS operations. I did reference the MEL manual; but failed to read the Operations Procedures which outlines the restrictions.If it is a possibility with dispatch software; a safeguard that would prevent a flight plan from calculating if it was in violation of an MEL restriction would prevent this from happening in the future (much like how a flight plan will not calculate if you attempt to plan a non-overwater A/C on an overwater route). I have reason to believe that numerous people missed this restriction due to the fact that we are not ETOPS qualified. As a result; assumptions are made that there are no Operations Procedures; that it does not pertain to us; and they then fail to continue reading past the MEL to see if any action needs to be taken. Perhaps a notification can be incorporated into dispatch monitor when running a flight plan with this or similar MELs.  For example; a pack MEL will notify you that you must remain at a certain flight level and that there is a fuel penalty. These notifications appear on the flight summary page before taking you to the flight plan.  The note could say something along the lines of; 'Flight is restricted to limited overwater operations due MEL 25-61-01A.' Also for the Dispatch group; reiterate the importance of reading an MEL in it's entirety via training or an Ops Memo.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher realized after the fact that an A320 with an MEL restricting extended overwater flights; was routed with a flight segment over the Gulf of Mexico.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Fluid
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise flight 38;000 FT; 130 west of ZZZ Master Caution light came on Engine # 2 hydraulic low pressure light. Ran the QRH and declared an emergency. Diverted to ZZZ and landed overweight at 135;000 LBS. Upon arrival at the gate the Hydraulic System B quantity indication showed RF [Re Fill].




Synopsis: B737-800 reports loss of B Hydraulic System fluid and a resulting low pressure indication at FL380. Flight diverts to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Other unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I had been furloughed and haven't worked the last 5 months. I got my first reserve trip as no 4. I worked my first leg; we were full to the capacity. It was hectic. When I was boarding my next leg; I realized I had not done exit row briefing on my first leg. I did everything I was supposed to; and absolutely have the knowledge of procedure; but having been out of work for 5 months; and working full flight with lots of bags; I think it slipped my mind. I regret forgetting exit row briefing. Had never happened and will never happen again.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported forgetting to brief the exit row and cited not flying for five months as a contributing factor.