elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AK12.Airport, AK
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: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: CTAF AK12
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Generally clear skies; wind out of the SW at 5-10.I was northwest of Anchorage on my way to AK12.   I communicated with MRI tower for the transition through MRI airspace and then southbound to Flying Crown Airport (AK12).  Flying Crown is just outside of Class C airspace and the Seward Segment.   If I am not handed off by MRI; I switch to CTAF as soon as I leave the Seward Segment in order to call out my intentions as soon as possible.  I switched to CTAF to call out my intentions - typically 'Flying Crown Traffic; [tail number]; O'malley overpass 1;000 feet inbound to land; fly the field north to south for wind and runway check -Flying Crown' I was just west of the airport (we are encouraged to fly and pattern to the East of the airport so as not to fly over a residential neighborhood); and called out 'Flying Crown traffic; [tail number]; mid field; will be left downwind for landing to the South - Flying Crown'As I crossed mid-field and started turning downwind (north); I glimpsed another aircraft at or near the same altitude (1;000 feet) - about my 10:00.  I stopped my left turn and he went by my left side approximately 250-300 feet away.Every day there are multiple aircraft flying directly over this airport; some at or near pattern altitude.  There are float planes; twins; all types.   I assume the float planes are coming from Campbell Lake which is under the Class C veil.Somehow pilots need to be advised not to fly over this airport at or near pattern altitude.




Synopsis: A PA18 pilot reported an NMAC in the vicinity of AK12.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing out of ZZZ to FL380. Being very light and a slight wind shift; we went through FL370 at about 3;000 FPM. It went to altitude alert almost immediately before I could use vertical speed to arrest the rate. ATC gave us traffic at FL390 that we had in sight for a minute or so. The TCAS gave us the caution traffic then immediately a RA of level off. We leveled off at FL380 and traffic was at FL390.With our very light loads arresting climb rate needs to happen before a thousand feet.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported an altitude overshoot resulting in an RA.  The Captain stated the aircraft was very light in weight; which contributed to the event.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Staffing
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise altitude FL370; FWD WINDOW INOP EICAS message appeared; with formation of 2 cracks in FWD Captain (CA) windshield. Within one minute window shattered with associated loud noise. Position at time of event was approximately 200 nm E of our departure airport and 85 nm West of a suitable alternate. Followed QRH and determined possible deformation of outer pane appeared near original failure point; QRH directed land At Nearest Suitable Airport. Informed ATC and requested lower altitude and clearance to our selected divert airport. Informed FAs; had deadheading Captain come to cockpit to assist; informed Dispatch via ACARS; and deadheading Captain informed PAX. Determined because QRH recommended Land At Nearest; an overweight landing was appropriate. Overweight landing and Emergency checklists were completed.First Officer made normal landing. Following landing emergency was terminated after clearing the runway with taxi to the gate. Local staff handled customers. Appropriate maintenance log entries were made and contact was made to Dispatch via phone.Communication was difficult via ACARS and no communications was possible with local operations. Via radio operations not staffed with radio operator they said.




Synopsis: A B757-200 EICAS alerted FWD WINDOW with two cracks; then shortly a loud noise accompanying a shattered Captain's window. The QRH was completed; the flight diverted to a nearby airport and landed in emergency condition.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A80.TRACON, GA
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A B747-400 came in from the Northwest and I was told by TMU to assign Runway 27L; but to keep him on the north downwind instead of the actual 27L transition that we use when in dual operations. I told the B747-400 to expect vectors to Runway 27L and went on working the other traffic. Close behind the B747-400; there was another jet that I slowed to keep heavy separation. I noticed that the jet was compressing on the B747-400 to I turned the other jet 15 degrees to the right to keep separation. A few minutes later; I noticed the B747-400 turning on the 27L transition; right into the path of the other jet. I immediately turned B747-400 back the the left and descended him to 11;000 [feet] to try and keep separation. I'm really not sure what can be fixed here besides completely taking aircraft off the RNAV arrivals. I have had to do this a couple of times and I was able to explain to those pilots before what I needed them to do so they didn't plug the runway into their FMS's and fly the transition. Due to traffic complexity; I see this happening on occasion and I have concluded for myself; in order to stay safe and keep explanations to a minimum; I will just take them off the arrivals completely and put them direct ATL or just on a vector.




Synopsis: A80 Controller described a conflict event when traffic assigned a RNAV arrival strayed off the assigned route; the Controller indicating this was not an isolated occurrence.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Strong Odorless fumes that were caused at a high power setting during takeoff and climb until about 5;000 feet. Odor less fumes caused irritation in lunges that caused coughing.Identification: Once weight off wheels and in the climb till about 5;000 feet there was a strong odor less fumes that irritated lunges and caused coughing.Cause: Logbook had write up the day before describing strong fumes at high power setting and Maintenance found CMC code about electronic bay valve 2 failed several times. Which was then MELed.Response: Communication between crew and determining that it may be related to the Mel in the logbook and that we would consult with Maintenance once we arrived in ZZZ1 and would refuse to accept the airplane until fixed.Suggestions: Would have liked to consult with Maintenance if the Electronic bay valve that was failing closed was really the source of the fumes or if it was coming from somewhere




Synopsis: EMB-145LR Captain reported strong odorless fumes during initial climb at high power setting resulted in physiological issues.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft X was vectored to and cleared for a charted visual approach. Aircraft was level at 1800 feet indicating 180 knots; on a direct path; 2 miles prior to LYHTT which has a crossing altitude of 1800 feet. One mile prior to LYHTT; the aircraft begins a climb and veers off course. The aircraft goes missed approach. When queried; the pilot stated he was too high for the airport. Given the aircraft's position in reference to the fix; route of flight; altitude; and speed; it is my opinion that the missed approach was due to the flyability of the Light Visual Approach to RWY 33L. I believe the aircraft was indeed in a poor position for an approach to the airport. The B737-900 series is a very difficult airframe to descend; slow etc. It is one of the growing number of newer airframes that operate with a high efficiency making the charted visual approach more difficult than with other airframes.




Synopsis: A90 TRACON Controller reported a B737-900 flight crew executed a missed approach while complying with a published charted visual. The aircraft was reportedly to high on approach.  This type of occurrence is allegedly common to newer airframe aircraft according to the Controller. The descent rate is slower.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FADEC / TCC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise at FL350 we received an ECAM: Engine 2-FADEC B Fault; Sensor Fault; avoid rapid Thrust Changes. I contacted Dispatch and Maintenance and after a conference; decided to return to our departure airport for the following reasons: If we lost the other channel; the next step required that we land at the nearest suitable airport. Another concern was the potential loss of the left engine; which would leave us with only a degraded number 2 engine with the thrust change caution. On a single engine; we would very possibly require rapid thrust changes during certain phases of flight (approach; go-around). Continuing to our destination would have found us flying over higher; more mountainous terrain with fewer suitable alternate airports. I felt the safest option was to return to our departure airport with great VFR weather; and light winds.After an uneventful landing; a Maintenance Technician informed me that neither A or B FADEC channel was testing properly for engine 2; and both channels were testing normally for engine 1. He also informed me the FADEC had a history and had been worked on the previous evening. Our Flight Papers had no record of this maintenance in our Log History; despite the importance of the critical engine component. An additional concern is that our Flight Manual does not include the caution to Avoid Rapid Thrust Changes. In the event of an incomplete ECAM message it would be important for the flight crew to be aware of this operational precaution.




Synopsis: An A320 Captain elected to return to his departure airport following receipt of an ENG 2 FADEC Sensor Fault ECAM message the resolution for which included the caution to 'avoid rapid THR (thrust) changes.' He then enumerated his reasons for opting to return to his VFR departure airport.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
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 Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Gear selected down at FAF; no audible gear motor sounds; and only received down indication on main landing gear after 10 seconds. No positive down indication for nose gear (still illuminated red). We elected to go around; achieve safe altitude; and troubleshoot issue. Transfer of controls initiated; and we completed the landing gear emergency extension checklist. After pumping 5 times; a positive indication was received for nose gear as well. Due to uncertainty of gear integrity; we notified ATC and diverted to a different runway due to longer runway/better services.




Synopsis: A PC-12 Captain reported the aircraft's nose gear failed to extend normally for landing. As a precaution; the pilot elected to divert to an airport with a longer runway and better services.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on final approach I called for gear down; Flaps 15. The nose and right main gear came down and locked okay; but the left main did not extend.  We declared an emergency; consulted the QRH and cycled the gear twice with no change in results. Later; level at about 1;000 [feet] AGL for a fly by the Tower; we lowered the gear once again but this time we got three green lights.  The Tower took a look and said all looked good. We were then sequenced around for a landing during which we left the gear down and landed uneventfully. We stopped on the centerline while CFR took a look at the gear.  They all looked good so we taxied to the gate followed by the fire truck.




Synopsis: A B737-800 flight crew abandoned their approach when the left main gear failed to extend.  During a subsequent fly-by of the Tower the gear extended normally and an uneventful landing ensued.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: After departure [one of my] flights experienced a nose wheel steering ECAM alert. While trying to work this situation which was a declared emergency by the crew; I experienced numerous delays/lock ups by [our new communications system]. If this situation had been time critical; these breakdowns would have presented a significant hindrance in my ability to transmit and receive critical information to/from the flight crew in a timely manner. This tool represents a significant safety issue. It needs to be fixed or replaced before someone gets hurt.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher's ability to communicate with a flight experiencing problems was compromised by dysfunctional new communications hardware.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT; Tower SNA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other approach
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Approximately one mile north of LEMON; the final approach fix for Runway 20R in SNA; the First Officer (Pilot Flying) observed a drone pass about 100' over our aircraft. We were at 2500' MSL at the time. We notified ATC and Dispatch as soon as possible; and were interviewed at the gate by two deputies.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported a NMAC with a UAS while on approach to SNA.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MSP; Class E M98
ATC / advisory: TRACON M98
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Because of weather we were moved from the BLUEM Arrival over to the NITZR3. I am writing this report because even under the most ideal circumstances; the vertical profile of the Runway 35 procedure is a challenge (specifically NITZR 280 kts/12000A continuing to SHILD 230 kts/9000). The speed and altitude restrictions make this section right near the edge of the aircraft's capability. We were in a moderately loaded 737-800 with no real adverse wind or other variable and it still required intervention to comply with the arrival as written. More weight or a tailwind would surely make this arrival even more difficult.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported challenges flying the MSP NITZR 3 RNAV to Runway 35 with speed and altitude constraints at NITZR and SHILD. The 230 kts/9;000 ft at SHILD is about 33 NM south of MSP.