elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PIT.Airport, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PIT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PIT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on approach to PIT the Captain noticed a Drone and called its position out. I looked up and saw a 4 bladed drone with a camera attached to the bottom pass no more than 200 ft above and to the left of the aircraft. We were descending through 5000 ft at around 250 KIAS on the visual approach.It is obvious that catastrophic damage could have occurred to the aircraft if we would have struck the drone. It is my understanding that drones are not to be operated above 400 ft AGL and at least 5 SM outside the area of an airport. If this is the law it should be enforced.




Synopsis: CRJ200 First Officer reported sighting a drone with a camera attached at 5000 feet during a visual approach to PIT.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Complete right side brake failure upon landing in ZZZ.  Brake line became detached. Failure of some sort after brakes had just been replaced on #3 and #4. Surprised that entire right side brakes failed.  One brake line detaching should not have resulted in complete right side failure.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Crew reported brake failure on landing.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PBI.TRACON, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E PBI
ATC / advisory: TRACON PBI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Everyday occurrence.  Current procedures produce this airspace violation a multitude of times everyday.  IFR JET arrivals (250kts and greater) destined for BCT from the NW enter the PBI airspace on the TARTY arrival. These aircraft barely get 1-1/2 miles from the delivering sector's (ZMA) boundary before they become 1-1/2 miles from the adjacent airspace that the 'I' controller has to deliver them to.  They are actually in the 'I' scope's airspace for 4-5 total miles and about 45 seconds worth of time.  In that minor window the 'I' controller has to issue a descent clearance to the aircraft and have him successfully handed off and frequency changes to the next sector ('F' scope).  On many occasions the aircraft never even gets a comfortable 1-1/2 miles from the ZMA boundary before it enters the 'F' scope airspace.  This occurs 10-20 times a day; every day; for the past several years; with no attempt by the facility management to address or fix the problem.Airspace change or arrival route change.




Synopsis: PBI TRACON Controller describes a problem with an aircraft route that is in a sector's airspace only for a short time and then needs to be handed off; descended and shipped to another sector while violating another sector's airspace.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FIT.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: CTAF FIT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was entering the traffic pattern at 45 degrees for a downwind entry for RWY14 at FIT. I had previously announced my intentions and location on the 122.7 CTAF. I did not see or hear the conflicting traffic during its go around and climb out from RWY14.  I was alerted to the traffic by an ADS B traffic alert on my iPad. At this point I could not see the traffic in my field of view. I turned 45 to downwind and added power to get away from the traffic.  Earlier I had heard the conflicting aircraft on the CTAF advising it was on the RNAV20 approach and would be breaking off the approach for a straight in to RWY14. Calls to the conflicting traffic before and after ADS B alert we're not answered.It all happened very quickly and I only glanced at the ADS B display; figuring my attention should be outside the airplane looking for the traffic. But the combination of repeated ADS B traffic warnings and not being able to visually see and avoid the traffic was quite stressful.  Today; I was able to get the conflicting traffic's flight path from flight aware and compare it to my own from Garmin Pilot. It appears the conflicting traffic did a low approach to RWY14 and a go around; making a left climbing turn close to my own flight path. From the flight paths; the time stamps; and the fact that I never made visual contact with the conflicting aircraft; I think it passed behind me; and estimate it may have gotten as close as 500 ft.Being more vigilant to visually identify and track what I thought was landing traffic; would likely have avoided this dangerous conflict. The fact that the conflicting traffic never responded to my radio calls should also have raised a red flag.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reported experiencing an NMAC in the pattern at FIT airport.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Max power takeoff do to an MEL restriction. At around 80 knots generator 2 fault and almost immediately after generator 1 faulted; resulting in the airplane down grading to battery power. Executed a rejected takeoff and brought the aircraft to a stop. Tried to be easy on the brakes knowing I did not have anti-skid brakes. Exited runway and rejected takeoff checklist. Tried to reset both generators; but only could get number 2 generator back on line. Once we got some power back we checked brake temp and saw the highest temperature on number 4 brake was 350 degrees turned brake fan on and temperature started to go down. Then started APU to get a second source of power. No additional problems could be found so taxied back to gate.


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


Synopsis: Wide body flight crew experienced a dual generator failure during the takeoff roll so rejected the takeoff.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X departs ZZZ daily. Frequently these pilots do not read back clearances correctly or they climb so slow as to need to be vectored off course to get MVA clearance. Then they bug a lot to be put on course. In this case I was training someone; he told Aircraft X to go direct ZZZZZ out of 070; aircraft read out of 060. Then we gave the sector to another controller but the aircraft failed to climb to miss the 090 MVA. Aircraft X [should] file [more direct fixes] into ZZZ airspace to miss the higher MVA's or give them plenty of time to climb in lower MVA until they get to an altitude that will miss the 090 MVA. They will frequently climb so slow that even if we get them on course at [intersection] on the airway they are climbing too slow to be considered at safe altitudes for the airway and higher terrain.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported an aircraft that regularly departs on a route does not climb well enough to meet the altitude requirements and has to be taken off the route for climb.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We departed Runway 8 at DEN.  Thunderstorms were blocking the Yellowstone Departure with the HANKI transition.  This was our filed route.  We were given a heading to fly after departing Runway 8.  The heading was keeping us south of the weather.  After climbing past the storms; we were given a revised route.  Direct HCT direct FOD as filed.  I had the autopilot on.  I quickly entered what I thought was the correct course into the FMC.  Mistakenly entering HYS; which is Hays; Kansas; instead of entering HCT Hays Center; then FOD.  It looked reasonable on the display.  The direction; distance; and letters (HYS).  So; we agreed and I executed the route.  The Captain then informed Dispatch of the route change.  After flying for a few minutes; ATC asked us if we were now turning direct (HCT)? We replied we were.  They then cleared us direct FOD.  After wondering why they asked us this; we realized I had entered HYS for HCT.  HYS was about 25 to 30 degrees further south of HCT.  We didn't confirm HCT off the Chart because at the time we only had our filed departure procedure; the Yellowstone HANKI transition; out.  HCT was not on this chart.  Also; like I said; the letters HYS; HCT; Name Hays; Hays Center; distance; and heading all seemed reasonable.  Also; we were distracted by the weather and informing dispatch of the new route of flight.


Second narrative: After departing DEN on Runway 8; we were on a 090 heading for TRWs that blocked our Yellowstone HANKI Departure. Had requested Direct ONL as filed; but DEN Center later gave us direct Hayes Center; Fort Dodge; as filed.  We entered into the FMC; HYS; FOD. It should of been HCT; FOD.  After a moment center asked if we are direct Hayes Center yet?  We all realized our mistake and DEN center recleared us FOD as filed.  No comments were made by DEN Center and no traffic was displayed within 40 miles on our TCAS.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew is vectored around thunderstorms during departure then cleared direct Hays Center; direct Fort Dodge; FPR.  HYS is mistakenly entered for HCT resulting in ATC questioning the route and issuing a revised clearance.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Cylinder Head
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: All indications were that the repair was airworthy; aircraft was flying fine and compression on the two new cylinders was good. After approximately 10-hours of flight time; the pilot reported that the engine was making a knocking noise and elected to land. The Maintenance Facility removed the rocker box cover on the suspected cylinder and found that the rocker arms were on the wrong side causing a misalignment. The cylinders were received from the Overhaul Facility and placed on the aircraft. I should have checked to make sure the correct part number was on the correct side. I assumed that they were. The plane landed without incident and the customer's aircraft is receiving warranty work.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) with Inspection Authority; reports a Piper PA28 Cherokee Six elected to land after the pilot reported the Lycoming IO-540 engine started making knocking noise. Two overhauled cylinders had been installed just ten flight hours earlier.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Prior to takeoff; we briefed the departure and completed checklists for Runway XX per the SID with updated ATIS. The weather was: (N) November wind forecast at 050/9; 9 miles visibility with rain; overcast at 600 feet temperatures 6/4; altimeter 29.72' Per the SID; we climbed runway heading to 150 AGL then went to NAV mode to join the SID on a heading of 334 degrees; At 600 feet; I called for autopilot on; a few seconds later in the turn at about 700 feet in the clouds and heavy rain; the WINDSHEAR alarm sounded. The autopilot kicked off and I executed the windshear emergency procedure by applying full power; maintaining heading and following the flight director for maximum angle of attack. Per the most recent company operations bulletin posted just a few days before about Prohibited Area violations; the First Officer called the Tower immediately and advised 'windshear event'. The Tower acknowledged and advised other traffic. The windshear alarm continued for 10-15 seconds as I continued to following the emergency procedure. After the event; [we] contacted the Tower and they had us switch to Departure; also advised them of our current heading and altitude and the windshear event. We tried to rejoin the SID and the departure; understanding the nature of the [situation]; Departure gave us a 120 degree heading to rejoin the SID after ZZZZZ. Once established; we climbed to 14;000 feet at 250 knots. We were later told to contact ZZZ Operations when we landed. When we called the Operations Director after landing; he advised us that they had pulled the data and recorded the windshear as changing from 050/8 on the surface to 150/37 at 1;000 feet. He stated he was glad of the outcome (we were still alive) and took my information. He stated we had done the right thing and we would be contacted for additional information in about a week.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported encountering windshear just after takeoff.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHF.Airport, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON ORF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Passed a drone on a heading to PHF at 7;500 feet MSL; a drone was sighted in close proximity (about 500 feet from the aircraft). It was traveling opposite direction to our aircraft. It was a white quad-copter. No evasive action was required. It was reported for future traffic.




Synopsis: Embraer Captain reported encountering a drone at 7;500 feet in the vicinity of area.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDM.Airport, OR
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D RDM
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE; Tower RDM
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for a visual approach to runway 10 RDM. While Aircraft Y was behind him looking for a visual approach as well.  I passed Aircraft Y's inbound to tower and the informed me that there was a change in the winds and runway 28 would be in use.  We called to see if RDM tower could provide visual separation between Aircraft X and Aircraft Y.  Tower advised they could; tower then asked if he could give the option to Aircraft Y of runway 10 or 28 and advised he could still provide visual.  There was some confusion on who was going to what runway because they had coordinated a few times which runway Aircraft X would be going to.  He ended up going to runway 10. At this time tower was talking to both aircraft involved.  RDM tower then called me to ask; Aircraft X (at this point was a departure) is looking for a missed approach to do another practice approach.  Tower asked; 'What do you want him on?'  Tower also advised they were still providing visual separation between the two aircraft.  Aircraft Y who was now on about a 6 mile right base to runway 28 and Aircraft X runway heading to 8;000 per my instruction.  Even though the aircraft were visually separated CA [Conflict Alert] went off.   Also; after discussing the situation with other controllers it was brought up.  Vectors below the Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) as tower did not issue the RDM2 SID for visual approach go a rounds.  Since they did not issue fly the RDM2 heading 100; is was a vector below the MIA.I would bring up the fact that this is something to advise other controllers as something to look out for regarding potential ODO.  Also; some sort of procedure needs to be put in place with RDM tower.  As a tower controller in the military and DoD we had specified in a LOA; If aircraft go missed approach and the tower patterns are open; tower should work them through once and if they still can't complete the approach. Another type of coordination between tower and the approach function for that airport could be worked out.




Synopsis: A Seattle Center (ZSE) Controller reports of confusion about the procedure for a missed approach off of RDM airport with an aircraft arriving on the opposite direction arrival.