elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
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 Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At 320 FT AGL (radar altimeter); we encountered the wake from the preceding Airbus which caused our aircraft to roll left and right greater than I could control. At 280 FT AGL I elected to go-around. The cause of the strong wake turbulence was the Airbus we were following and the wind which was 040 at 7 KTS on the surface and 040 10-15 KTS on approach. We were told that we were 4.9 miles behind the Airbus when we asked the Controller about our sequence to the runway prior to calling the airfield in sight. We were told that our speeds were matched and we were told to slow to 170 KIAS and then slowed to 160 and finally to our final approach speed and told to hold that speed until five miles on final. We were stable with all checklists complete prior to 1;000 FT AGL while flying down the glide path. The go-around was uneventful. Tower asked us why we went around and we informed then it was for a wake encounter at low altitude on final. We then got vectors to an uneventful landing. RECAT wake turbulence separation does not work when there is a quartering headwind. Please consider not using the closer spacing during these wind events.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: Wide body flight crew reported wake vortex encounter in trail of an Airbus on final approach to MEM that was strong enough to trigger a go-around.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A C172 pilot informed me that his engine hadn't quit; but was missing and would be 'going fast.'  I informed the pilot of the position of the nearest airport; his destination; and asked if he had it in sight.  I believed he had enough altitude to reach it; but he did not have it in sight.  Two minutes later; the pilot informed me that he would not make the airport and intended to land on the interstate.  The map confirmed his position over the interstate.  I issued the wind at my airport and updated his position with respect to the nearest airport.  Another aircraft checked in and asked if anyone was out to assist.  One minute later; I informed the distressed aircraft that they were; 'Radar contact lost;' with a last observed altitude of 1;200 feet and asked the pilot to stay in communication with us as long as possible.  One minute later; the monitoring pilot relayed communication that the C172 was safe on the ground and was asking for a phone number.  I relayed the facility recorded phone number and attempted to establish the number of passengers.  The pilot immediately telephoned and spoke with the Front Line Manager.  Having the other aircraft assist with relaying communication greatly improved the situation; since we were able to verify the status of the aircraft and communicate a phone number to the pilot.




Synopsis: Near midnight; a VFR C172 engine failed while the pilot was talking with ATC who advised him about location until loosing radar. Then another pilot relayed the distress aircraft position until it landed safely on an Interstate Freeway.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 20
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was acting as pilot in command of BE58. I was enroute ZZZ. This was a Part 91 flight. When on descent to ZZZ my #2 engine began to run rough and surge. I immediately went full rich with the mixture and turned on the boost pump; first to low then high without a positive result. Shortly after this the # 1 engine did the same thing and again I did the same procedure. I advised Center of my situation and he suggested ZZZ1 airport about 5 miles north of my position. I concurred started my turn; feathered the props; set the mixtures to cutoff and set my glide speed to 120 knots. I switched over to the UNICOM frequency and advised my position and intentions. After ensuring that I had the runway made I lowered the landing gear and made a normal flaps up landing. I had enough speed left to taxi clear of the runway. Neither my passengers nor I received any injuries. The airplane suffered no damage. After landing I determined that I had run out of fuel. Later investigation it was determined that line service had not fueled the airplane. As PIC I always check the fuel load. The BE58 has two fuel gauges on the wing located just outboard of the engine nacelles. When the tanks are full (81 gal usable) the arrow goes beyond the 60 gal mark to the full down position. It does not show 80 gal as that part of the fuel gage is black. I believed I had full tanks. They were; in fact; almost empty. Both indications read about the same. I believe the outside gauges to be more accurate than the panel mount fuel gauges and used use them to determine my exact fuel load. In the future I am going to require a receipt from the FBO telling me who fueled my airplane; how much fuel they put on and the time they did it. By keeping a positive flow of information I hope to never experience another incident like this again.




Synopsis: BE58 pilot reported engine failure due to fuel exhaustion.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying the initial part of the arrival in mild turbulence and IMC; my autopilot failed. The failure resulted in a full and hard left bank. The roll servo locked in a complete hard left bank and required pilot override. While struggling with controlling the aircraft and trying to prevent inversion; I had significant altitude and course deviations. Once I was able to diagnose the condition (locked roll servo) and pull the correct autopilot circuit breaker; I was able to regain proper control of the aircraft and shoot an RNAV approach to the closest airport. During this time; I informed Center; asked for a delay vector; and was given the same. ATC helped me identify the closest airport with a published approach.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported a temporary loss of control due to the failure of the autopilot roll servo.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On final; Runway XXL; ZZZ; Night; 1000 foot ceiling; Me (Captain) flying; gusty winds; very light load; FO low currency- only 150 hrs in type since hired 1 year ago; and has not been flying much. I was hand flying at 2;000 feet on normal ILS. Called for gear down; flaps 15 at approximately 2;000 feet and flaps 30 landing; check at about 1500 feet. FO ran check list; while I hand flew the approach. The winds were gusty; our target was +15 ref and it was night.  I saw flap refs change on airspeed tape; and glanced at gear lights when FO ran checklist; but I did not have full attention to FO duties since it was dark and gusty. We broke out at 1;000 feet; I called clear to land and set missed approach altitude. At 500 feet we simultaneously got the 500 auto call out and Too Low Flaps. I simultaneously; started a Go-Around (finger to toga button) and looked at flap gauge - which was at 25. But I hesitated on the go-around when I saw why we got the GPWS. I commanded flaps set to 30; which the FO immediately did. We were then about 350-400 feet and stable; and I continued to a normal landing. After landing I realized; even though there was adequate time to set the flaps to 30; I should have gone around. We debriefed after parking. The FO said he just missed the flaps in setting and checking on the checklist; most likely due to being low time in aircraft and rusty from time off. I missed his wrong setting; due to the dark and the gusty winds requiring my attention. I said I should have gone around; and that he as well should have told me to. I am confident if I had not immediately recognized why we got the too low flaps and immediately corrected it; I would not have continued.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a TOO LOW FLAPS warning and an Unstabilized Approach.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CNM.Airport, NM
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E CNM
ATC / advisory: CTAF CNM
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After take off turned left cross wind; after passing 1;000 AGL engaged autopilot. TAS system detected a target on a crossing course. Disconnected autopilot; when TAS turned black and gave audible warning put aircraft in climbing turn to avoid target. TAS indicated a '00' solid diamond passing underneath us; made numerous attempts to [contact] incoming pilot; 'No Joy'. Contacted FBO and told them of situation and to ask pilot why he wasn't communicating. Pilot stated to FBO that he was on frequency 122.95; this is our old CTAF frequency. One year ago frequency was changed.




Synopsis: PC-12 pilot reported NMAC with an inbound aircraft at CNM when the inbound was apparently using an outdated CTAF frequency.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAL.Airport, FL
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Aircraft: Cessna 340/340A
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E TPA
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: IFR southbound to LAL via Lake Parker cancelled IFR about 8 miles out at maybe 5;000 FT. During descent deviated east about a mile to hit Lake Parker steam plant on a westward heading. [I] directed passenger in right seat to assist in watching for traffic. Suddenly a warbird A4 or L39 type jet passed to the right side at an extremely high rate of speed at the same altitude; perhaps 100 FT or less in distance. Paint scheme appeared to be navy grey with navy like numbers. Rate of passage was way too fast to take evasive maneuvers or to see other identifying information.Ways to prevent it:Maintain IFR all the way to the field. Have ATC provide traffic advisories prior to cancellation. Jet traffic obey NOTAM to stay away from LAL. (I assume the traffic was departing LAL.)Turbine traffic departed IFR.Better traffic vigilance from both cockpits. Leave transponders on during LAL departure/arrival. (I was enough shook up that I failed to complete the task of setting 1200 and turning the transponder to standby; hence my transponder was active at the time of the incident).




Synopsis: A CE340 pilot inbound to LAL for an air show suffered an NMAC with an unidentified turbine powered aircraft apparently departing from LAL.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Evacuated; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 2 Crew on board only. We departed ZZZ after all normal flight occurrences and procedures. During climb out through 23;000 ft. we hit a cloud layer and per the OAT we turned on the engine anti ice. After turned off a couple minutes later we got a right engine fire light. As PIC I performed the immediate action items. The light remained on and per procedures I activated the Engine Fire Bottle. The light went out momentarily and by then we had shut down the affected right engine per the checklist. At this point we had [requested priority handling] and headed back for ZZZ. The fire light came back on and we decided to expel the second Fire Bottle. The light remained on so I initiated a rapid descent to influence air flow to extinguish the fire. We proceeded to ZZZ and the fire light extinguished and was intermittently coming on and off. We followed the Engine Fire Checklist and One Engine Inoperative Approach and Landing Checklist. We discussed Landing and Evacuation Procedures before landing and decided not to use speed brakes or thrust reversers on landing. We landed and stopped with approximately 1000 ft. of runway left and evacuated on the runway to ensure the safety of both crew members as we were the only two onboard. I spoke to ATC after wards and they did not need anything from us.




Synopsis: C560 Captain reported a right hand engine fire warning; causing an in flight shut down and an air turn back to a precautionary landing.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Reference Q400 MEL 28-XX-XX:The table needs to be more explicit and the pilots need instructions as to how to utilize the table. It is extremely confusing.After a call to the [Chief Pilot] (and 20 minutes of discussion with him; my First Officer; and a maintainer) we determined the fuel from the nacelle (refuel/defuel) panel for the inoperative/malfunctioning gauge should be written in 'A'; and the fuel from the operative gauge should be listed in 'B'. The table can be misinterpreted as written and can lead to operating a flight with less than required fuel. Small mistakes can lead to fuel starvation in flight. Write detailed instructions on exactly what needs to be written in each block.




Synopsis: DH8-400 Captain reported difficulty understanding the MEL procedure and the need for instruction.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute during maintenance ferry we received an EICAS message of fuel imbalance; we executed the checklist and noted how long it should take to balance the fuel based on fuel flow. It took half the expected time to balance the fuel; also we received another message of Fuel Disagree; After Electronic Checklist execution we now felt we had a possible fuel leak. We notified the Captain (who was on break) of the situation and he came to the cockpit. We inspected the left engine and noticed fuel was leaking from the fan section of the aircraft. We declared an emergency and initiated a turn towards a suitable diversion airport. We descended while executing the checklist which required engine shut down. We planned a single engine landing and the approach and landing were uneventful.


Second narrative: [Over the Pacific] heading east we had a Fuel Imbalance Checklist icon.Fuel Imbalance Checklist considered fuel leaks if one or more of the following was present: 1.  Fuel spray observed from an engine2.  A change in fuel imbalance of 1;000 or more within 30 minutes or less 3.  EICAS fuel remaining different than calculated fuel on the FMCWe had all three.We declared a mayday via both CPDLC and voice with ATC. [We] then requested and received a return clearance to ZZZZ via CPDLC as well as via voice on HF. We followed all checklists and notified all personnel. The checklist directed an engine shutdown to stop the fuel leak. It worked. We continued on the diversion with no other problems. Landed uneventfully. Taxiied (followed by the fire trucks) to the ramp where Maintenance met us and saw it was indeed a leak.


Synopsis: B777 flight crew experiences a fuel imbalance during a ferry flight over the Pacific Ocean. After rebalancing a Fuel Disagree message is displayed and the electronic checklist indicates a fuel leak is likely. Fuel is visually confirmed to be coming from the left engine which is shut down and the flight diverts to a suitable airport.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CPM.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF CPM
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I waited for a helicopter to land. After it did and it was no longer visible on the runway; I announced my takeoff; taxied on the runway; and started my takeoff run. The helicopter was still at the far end of the runway; apparently practicing hovering; and had not been apparent to me. [Due to the paint color; it] disappeared in the background clutter. I climbed away to the left and it veered off to the right.Helicopters are asked not to hover taxi on the runways; but they do. When done at the far end of a 3;300-foot runway they are difficult to see against the background. In this case; I should have repeated my calls and specifically asked for verification that the helicopter was clear of the runway.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a NMAC with a helicopter doing hover work on the runway during takeoff at CPM non-towered field.