elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
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: During the afternoon; my student and I were practicing touch-and-go landings at ZZZ. While we were on the departure leg of the third touch-and-go; I heard Aircraft Y make his first call that he was about to enter the pattern. My student made her crosswind turn and made a radio call; self-announcing her position in the crosswind over CTAF. Upon making the downwind turn; we noticed that Aircraft Y was also quickly approaching the 45-to-downwind turn via the ADS-B In function on our MFD.Visibility was hindered due to smoke in the air as well as the sun being in the same direction as the oncoming traffic. I looked to my right side to spot traffic and noticed him approaching our aircraft. I took control of the aircraft and made a bank to the left to avoid the traffic coming from the right. I estimate that Aircraft Y passed behind our aircraft at a distance of 300-400 ft. It appeared that Aircraft Y was descending into the traffic pattern at a higher-than-normal speed for the aircraft. We estimated his ground speed on the 45 entry to be 120-140 kt. After he passed behind us; we re-established on the downwind and executed another touch-and-go before departing the pattern.




Synopsis: DA40 Flight Instructor reported a NMAC event with another aircraft while the student pilot was practicing touch and go's at a non-towered airport.
Date: 201912
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Gate Arrival
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon parking the aircraft; a strong odor filled the back galley; right side. The left side air vents were closed off; making the odor stronger aircraft right. Flight Attendant 4; answered the call from Flight Attendant 1 for the monitor and challenge when this odor filled the aft galley and my nostrils; burning intensely. After verification of doors; I grabbed tissues and covered my nose. I shouted 'fumes; fumes' to Flight Attendant 2 and he quickly ducked into lav and covered his nose and mouth with wet paper towels. He did get a small whiff of the odor and that helped me verify a description of the smell as a varnish; paint remover smell. I immediately called the Captain and reported this to him and he said it was probable fuel intake and I told him no; [it must be] something stronger and to report it. He said he would but I later found out he had not.It was the last leg of the Captains trip and I understand not wanting to spend time with a write up or discrepancy of the aircraft; but this was a safety issue and possibly harmful to the next crew and/or passengers. I have no way of offering a way of preventing this in the future if the flight deck will not believe a Flight Attendant with over 30 years of experienced flying.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant reported smelling strong fumes in the aft cabin during gate arrival on the last flight of the day. Captain was notified but refused to relay the issues to maintenance.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 99
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant glare caused cockpit illumination. The glare makes scanning for traffic impossible over approximately 40 degrees of the horizon which is directly ahead of the aircraft; approaching BOACH Intersection; on V21. To avoid eye discomfort the pilot had to lower his viewpoint in the aircraft to place the power plant mirrors below the glareshield.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reports the glare from a Solar Power Plant requires the pilot seat to be lowered so the glareshield blocks the mirrors; but also eliminates the view forward.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arrival at ZZZ; A normal landing was set up. Engine and flaps were in landing configuration. Landing gear was extended and confirmed down by green indicator light and by visual (pilot side main gear by viewing out pilot window; co-pilot side main and nose gear by wing located mirror). I landed on both main gear as normal. As the nose settled during deceleration; the nose fell to the runway. The plane slide to a stop on the center line of the runway. I turned off electronics; master switch and fuel. I exited the plane. I did not notice any fluids leaking from the engine compartment or any other location. I contacted the Manager of the airport and the Manager of the FBO. I also spoke briefly with the FAA. The FAA authorized removal of the aircraft from the runway. Upon lifting the nose of the plane by a front end loader; the nose gear limply extended. Upon kicking the nose gear a few times; the gear appeared to lock down. The plane was towed from the runway.




Synopsis: Cessna 210 Pilot reported a nose landing gear collapse on landing; requiring equipment to remove aircraft from runway.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Duct Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arrival at 20;000 FT we had a (right) bleed duct red warning message. The First Officer was at the controls; so he took the radios as well; and I ran the QRH procedure. At this time we had just left IMC and icing conditions; so the cowl anti-ice system was running at the time that the message occurred. The QRH prompted for the bleed valves to be shut down manually; and for any source of anti-icing to be turned off; therefore depressurizing the aircraft; descending to 10;000 FT and finding a nearest suitable field to land. After following the QRH in its entirety; we declared an emergency; descended and found the nearest suitable airport was 80 miles away. After communicating our intentions to the flight attendants; passengers and company; we proceeded to land in [diversion airport] without further incident. The passengers were deplaned and taken inside the terminal.After returning to the aircraft the next morning; Maintenance found the message to be caused by an open loop. So it was determined to be an indication problem. The fact that we got the warning message is what prompted us to make the decision that we made. At that point it was impossible for us to know if the message was a false indication or not. So we followed the procedures outlined in the QRH; declared an emergency and landed at the nearest suitable airport.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported diverting to nearest suitable in response to a bleed overheat that later was determined to be a false warning.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MGGT.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On final approach into MGGT flying the RNAV (RNP) Z Runway 20 flight crew noticed that the Glide Path (GP) indications brought the aircraft well below the PAPI (4 reds) and well below a comfortable; normal GP. Crew abandoned GP; disregarded flight director pitch bar and returned to an appropriate GP angle for a normal landing. This approach needs to be flight tested in the 737 to confirm it safety parameters.

Callback: Captain stated that he had no additional information to add to his report at this time. However; he will update ASRS if this anomaly is repeated at MGGT.



Synopsis: A Boeing 737 Captain reported that a published RNAV approach to MGGT airport resulted in a glideslope indication that appeared to be lower than normal. The crew transitioned to a visual glideslope reference and landed uneventfully.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was working the final sector on a runway 10 flow into Portland. I noticed two primary targets north of my airspace heading southbound. I did a minimum separation function on the stars display and decided that the targets were likely going to be close to my B737 jet. But the targets were spaced out in such a way that I couldn't extend the B737 on the downwind to miss the first target; because it would likely merge with the second target. I descended the B737 jet and turned base; hoping to turn final south of the two targets. I called traffic at least 3 or 4 times to the B737 jet and the pilot never got either target in sight. I then called local 2 and asked if they could see any low level aircraft out to the west. They said no. The target eventually got to within .333 of a mile to the B737 at about a 6 mile final before it crossed final and headed to the southeast. The second target did not cross final and instead appeared to land at [ a satellite] airport.This was a normal/daily operation at KPDX. Unidentified targets; both primary targets and 1200 codes; cross Portland final all day constantly and they hardly ever call approach for flight following. One day this is going to end in a near midair or even worse. There are a lot of controllers here [submitting safety reports on] these events and we get little to no feedback. Management seems indifferent as well. What do you want us to do? One day a collision is going to be unavoidable without an airspace design change. It really is.




Synopsis: P80 TRACON Controller reported the PDX class C airspace does not provide separation to arrivals from non-participating air traffic.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection; Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flight crew contacted cargo operations stating that the Restricted Articles on board were over the loading restrictions per USG-13. Crew Chief notified the Load Planner that the restrictions had been exceeded and the planner called the ramp to remove the cargo from the aircraft. Crew Chief later called back stating that the shipment was limited quantity and USG-13 did not apply; but the ramp was already in the process of removing the cargo.My concern is that no one locally in ZZZZ spoke with Cargo and Crew Chief claimed to have no way of being able to reach them. [We're] happy to assist with these situations as best we can; but we do not have the expertise to address such an issue in as timely a matter as contacting cargo directly. It is ultimately the Crew Chief's responsibility to ensure all Dangerous Goods shipments are loaded correctly; and making sure he has the proper contact information in a case like this would make that process a lot easier for him/her. It seems there was some uncertainty on cargo's end as well.




Synopsis: Destination Load Planner reported a communications breakdown between Load Planner and origination Load Crew Chief regarding restricted articles limitations. Dangerous Goods removed from flight prior to departure.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BET.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
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 E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Tower BET
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descended with radar for visual approach to BET. I had previously asked what MVA was in the Bethel area. I recall something around 3000 ft was given. After asking for a descent for visual; at about 5200 ft ATC advised 'radar contact lost'. Below clouds with lowest layer about 3100 ft AGL; Saw a well-lit runway on approximately the correct orientation for BET 19. PF (Pilot Flying) and PM (Pilot Monitoring) concurred runway in sight. We had runway lights for a north/south runway in sight; with PAPI. These were very bright. After beginning visual final with tower; tower stated 'not in sight; cleared to land'. Tower stated lights were on high; and these seemed to be set high.Established on final; both pilots questioned the runway; lack of parallel and cross. Executed a go-around and turned west with town of Bethel in sight. Airport was visually acquired; normal landing at BET.After landing the airport we initially saw was determined to be Kwethluk KWT RWY 18/36. This airport has pilot controlled lighting. I never saw it illuminated on previous arrivals. [I recommend] authorized use of 'own ship' position in Class 1 EFB operation. Flight crew may have been better served to conduct published approach to the planned destination. Should have asked tower to switch light off then back on. This would have been more definitive than just the runway lights are on full bright.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier Crew reported lining up with the wrong runway at a nearby airport at night.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
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 Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at FL410 after being airborne for approximately 45-55 minutes; we felt a 'pop/boom' accompanied by a left yaw followed immediately with indications that the left engine had failed. Specifically; there was no fuel flow and the N2 reading was zero. There were no abnormal indications before the failure occurred. All readings were normal. We then performed the Engine Shutdown or Failure in Flight checklist followed by the One Engine Inoperative Approach and Landing checklist. We declared an emergency and asked for clearance to an airport with long runways/facilities which would be suitable for an emergency aircraft. We were cleared to a nearby airport and arrived at the airport at approximately 20;000 feet. We spiraled down and the approach and landing were uneventful.




Synopsis: An HS-125 engine failed inflight so the crew completed the QRH; declared an emergency and diverted to a nearby airport for an emergency landing.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft X routinely does parachute operations on the departure end of GPI. Business owner; pilot; and GPI Tower have all been notified multiple times of the unsafe proximity of their jump operation to arriving and departing aircraft. The jump plane had been issued traffic departing GPI; and still let his jumpers go. Departing aircraft from GPI reporting seeing the parachute lines within close proximity to him. Jump aircraft receives traffic advisories but gives no heed to his proximity of other aircraft. It is just a matter of time before something catastrophic happens. Jump aircraft should be required to coordinate jumps with ATC. ATC should have authorization to deny a jump with aircraft in close proximity. Pilot of jump aircraft should be subject to questioning for multiple unsafe drops with other aircraft.




Synopsis: ZLC Center Supervisor reported a parachute jump aircraft released their jumpers over an airport even though they knew there was an aircraft departing the airport.