elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: 0OR9.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZSE
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About 45 minutes into my flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 at 7;500 MSL; my aircraft engine experienced a sudden and what appeared to be total power loss leaving the prop wind milling.  The engine did not cough or sputter.  The fuel gauges indicated approximately 1/4 tank in both left and right tanks.  Attempts to restart the engine were made but were unsuccessful.  I trimmed for best glide speed and turned toward nearest airport on my VFR chart.  Upon arrival I found the airport to be unsuitable for landing due to a large barn constructed at approach end of runway and multiple vehicles parked on pavement of the former runway.  Houses and trees were also obstructing the runway sides. Subsequently; I made a forced landing in a clearing adjacent to former runway.  The aircraft occupants egressed safely and noticed that fuel was leaking from the airplane's right-wing root and left wing fuel cap.Remove 0OR9 (Hanel Field) airstrip a defunct and non-operational airport from the FAA sectional charts and the airport facility directory. There is no possibility to safely land on the runways there. This should also apply to any other non operational airports which have runway obstructions.




Synopsis: Pilot reported engine failure at cruise and elected to divert to the nearest suitable airport. Reporter discovered that the airport was no longer suitable for aircraft landings; and needs to be updated on charts and aircraft software.
Date: 201307
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Heard a loud bang on takeoff. We suspected a tire fail; bird strike or compressor stall. No other indications on climbout. Upon briefing passengers prior to landing we were told by many that they heard noise and saw fog from right engine at takeoff. Emergency equipment was called as a precaution for landing; aircraft performed normal and landing was normal. Suspect compressor stall.




Synopsis: An A319 heard a loud bang on takeoff. Passenger reports of 'fog and noise' from the right engine reinforced their suspicion of a compressor stall. They declared an emergency and performed and uneventful return to their departure airport.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Other Person
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Final for SEA when the speeds of two IFR aircraft with visual approaches proceeded to land at SEA. The first aircraft was Aircraft X. This aircraft was on a Visual Approach following Aircraft Y to Runway 34C at SEA. The next aircraft was Aircraft Y who reported the previously mentioned aircraft in sight and was instructed to follow that aircraft to the same runway and then cleared on a Visual Approach. I then restricted the speed of this aircraft to 180 knots to the Final Approach Fix; to insure adequate spacing before talking to SEA Tower. Both aircraft landed and at the time it seemed to be a normal operation. I was told that Tower had a runway incursion with these two aircraft. Upon facility review the QA Specialists had mentioned that they noticed Aircraft X had slowed quite a bit in short distance for a stable approach but nothing you could notice in real time updates. The OM and QA Supervisor reviewed video and voice playback and they said that the speeds were too great and the reason Tower had and incursion was speeds and spacing with these two aircraft. I had been on Final a relatively short time when this transpired.I recommend that the people in positions of QA maintain a level of familiarity of air traffic at the locations they are responsible for. I don't feel that maintaining a rating on that position is necessary to give their opinion of potential events.




Synopsis: S46 Final Controller reported a loss of separation due to speeds on final for SEA and as a result the Tower had a runway incursion due to the lack of speed control on Final.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Rain; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Staffing; Company Policy
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: While working combined sectors the weather closed down the east coast. I started receiving traffic from the east coast from overland while also receiving traffic going south already established on the AR routes. I told my supervisor of the coming traffic problems. I had a lot of weather already in my airspace along with warning areas active all around. I worked through the mess for a while before I had to ask for the sector to be split. The traffic continued to build over the next 2 hours. It was very clear that no plan was in place or being worked on. I continued to work extreme traffic through weather for the next 2 hours and 15 minutes. I had to ask for a tracker. We were so busy they had one standing over my shoulder and the sector next to me because we didn't have enough staffing to give both of us a tracker. I finally had to beg for a dedicated tracker for safety. I had so many planes I couldn't see them all. It was one of the worst safety issues I have been involved with while being here. The red number for sector 52 is 23 and I was working well over 30 for a number of blocks in weather. 23 is the max under ideal conditions. Over 30 with weather over at least an hour and a half time frame is just unacceptable. In an agency that claims to be worried about safety it was very clear it didn't matter this time frame. The sector south of my airspace also experienced the same amount of volume and complexity. I spent over 2 hours on position. We never have a plan in place when these issues come up. It always seems to be a total surprise when it happens. We have been told by every manager we are not allowed to slow traffic down due to staffing. You even say the 'staffing' word and they change it to weather or something else. We were not; nor have been; properly staffed to handle this types of weather events. I understand things take a little bit to filter down through the pipeline but 1 hour and 30 minutes of solid red complex red traffic with weather is unacceptable.




Synopsis: ZJX Center Controller reported they worked combined sectors of traffic deviating for weather consistently exceeding the designated limits for the sectors with not enough staff to assist them.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure; the first officer and I noticed a very strong odor in the aircraft. I proceeded to call the cabin to inquire if they could smell the odor that we were experiencing. The number one flight attendant informed me that she could smell it and passengers were complaining about the odor as well. It was a very strong odor that I have never experienced before. It had a chemical smell to it and we could not determine the origin. I proceeded to identify as a priority handling with departure and we returned for landing. The total time in flight was 10 minutes and the landing was uneventful. After being checked by the ARFF crew we proceeded to the gate. An entry was made in the logbook and maintenance was notified. It is also important to note that two days prior; this aircraft had to return to the gate due to an odor on the aircraft and according to ZZZ maintenance the aircraft had another logbook indicating an odor in the cabin. There were no health issued with the passengers; and the flight attendants declined to be checked in ZZZ.


Second narrative: Unknown fume event. Maintenance informed us they washed the engines the night before and did a high power run after; but this aircraft seemed to have a fume event history after they did some more digging into its history.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported strong fumes on flight deck during takeoff; consequently; they returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the downwind I was in a Cessna Skyhawk with a student when Tower told us to look out for traffic joining the downwind on a 45º; it being a Piper Seminole.  We had them in sight; however it appeared they were on a continuous course direct to us. Tower clearly told the Seminole they were #2 following us to land however the course they took seemed to be as if they wanted to overtake us in the pattern. When I looked over seeing them directly abeam us; off our 3 o'clock while banking right; I knew they not only were unable to see us while banking. They were extremely close; 400 feet horizontal distance being a hopeful estimate of distance at that point. I requested a short approach to land from Tower to get away from the Seminole and operate the aircraft at a safer distance away from the Seminole.




Synopsis: C172 Flight Instructor reported an NMAC with a PA-44 in the landing pattern.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: [We] encountered possible wake turbulence enroute to STP. Flight was in smooth air; then encountered 2 to 3 sec of moderate turbulence. Autopilot stayed engaged through the event. All on board were seated with belts fastened. Notified MSP Center that we encountered possible wake turbulence and they pointed out an EMB-170 in front approximately 8 miles that had climbed through our altitude. Aircraft was never in sight and no contrails were forming.




Synopsis: Falcon 2000 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence at FL280 in trail of an EMB-170 enroute to STP.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SFB
ATC / advisory: Tower SFB
Aircraft component: Electrical/Electronic Panel & Parts
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Lost electrical system at night while beginning Arrival at SFB.  Made contact with Orlando Approach; but lost transmit capability after that.  Squawked 7600; continued the arrival and monitored Sanford tower while transmitting in the blind about intentions.  I received a light gun clearance to land on runway 9L; so I did so and taxied to the ramp via A3.  After landing I called tower via telephone to confirm that no conflicts were made and no additional information was required.




Synopsis: C-172 pilot experienced loss of electrical system. Pilot made radio transmissions in the blind and squawked 7600. After receiving a green landing clearance light from the Tower; pilot landed safely.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B OAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The OAKES2 arrival MONOH transition for 30 presents a trap for flight crew members.  If we reference 10-7A; it is noted that aircraft operating at OAK may be below the Class B shelf.  The 10-1B provides a depiction of the airspace; but is useless with no identifying fixes; DME; radial; etc.  Upon review of the high altitude chart and cross referencing fixes; I noted that the OAKES2 STAR will take you below Class B airspace if flown at the lower altitude limits. FFIST HAS A STAR window of 7;000 - 9;000 [feet]. While the Class B shelf starts at 8;000 [feet] and PRFCT above 5;000 [feet]; Class B shelf begins at 8000 [feet]. There is no reference on the STAR of exiting the airspace and no mandatory speed markings below the 280 KTS mandated on the chart. (Standard transition at 250 [knots] at 10;000 [feet].) In order to properly identify the Class B airspace; we had to overlay our arrival on the high altitude charts. It is not standard practice to reference hi altitude charts on the arrival. This creates an obvious trap for our crew members.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported that the OAKES2 STAR will take you below class B airspace if flown at the lower altitude limits.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other boarding and in flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Repeatedly asked passenger seated in XX to wear mask during boarding process and in flight. Said he did not have to wear it during last couple reminders because he had a package of candy and a power aid bottle next to him and the 'eating or drinking' rule applied; even though when asked to wear his mask he was neither eating or drinking. No action was taken because this was a short flight and did not feel comfortable since he was claiming to be eating and drinking the entire time.


Second narrative: Passenger walked on without a mask and continually had to be asked to put it on. This occurred during boarding; during flight and final approach. Both flight attendants asked him to comply; he stated he was eating. He was not eating at any time we asked him for compliance. No action was taken due to nature of short flight and he claimed to be eating and drinking.


Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported confusion about airline policy relating to the face mask policy.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My student and I departed southwest from ZZZ on a mini cross country. When I took the controls so my student could get his charts out (approximately 7 miles away from the airport); I noticed that the trim wheel could only be progressively moved in the nose down position. At some point I had to apply quite a lot of yoke aft pressure to keep the plane in straight and level flight. I made a 180; and let ATC know the situation. On the way back for landing; my student appeared to have forced the nose trim wheel downwards in order to get some nose up trim action and we heard a loud snapping or cracking noise. After the noise; the trim wheel operated normally; and we were able to fly the plane no issues and land uneventfully. We landed and downed the plane so our mechanic could look at it. I can't imagine a student solo or a low time private pilot dealing with this situation well. Not sure if this was a factor; but we were the first flight after maintenance was done to repair the carb heat control.




Synopsis: Instructor Pilot reported pitch trim wheel would only trim nose down; not up and required strong force to free it during flight.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IMS.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G IMS
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Visit to support event. NOTAMs checked; none published. TFR's checked; none published. CVG ATC queried; No restrictions. IMS UNICOM queried; No Known Restrictions.Observed helicopter on approach; monitored landing until rotor stopped. Followed helicopter approach path to a water landing 2 miles downstream beyond coast guard floating restriction markers. River was open to boat traffic; [event] not running at this time. 4-5 knot current dictated downstream landing. 5 knot headwind dictated upstream takeoff. Maneuvered for altitude on climb out and avoided bridge and power plant; followed same path out of area. Received phone call from Indianapolis FAA that they had a test drone program and FAA inspector on site; Coast Guard had called FAA. Drone program and Flight Service checked for NOTAMs in arrears for IMS and IIU VOR NOTAMs. Local Seaplane Operator not notified of Drone program. Drones restricted to 200 feet by FAA. At no time were we below 500 feet over [event] course. No known Conflicts.




Synopsis: Prior to takeoff; seaplane crew noticed a small airborne helicopter. Crew waited until helicopter had completed a water landing before taking off. Crew later learned that the craft was part of an FAA test drone program and that the local seaplane operator had not been notified.