elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On flight to hospital with patient on board; crew and I noticed that the air conditioning stopped operating and then there was a strong smell of something burning. After turning off the air conditioning unit; I performed an 'S' turn to check for a visible smoke trail. With no visible smoke showing; [I] performed a precautionary landing in a safe and accessible location so that the responding EMS service could access the patient and crew to continue to the hospital. After landing; we checked the aircraft to make sure it was safe for the crew and patient to remain in the area and then contacted Maintenance Dispatch to update the events as they were progressing. Assisted crew and patient loading into EMS unit on scene and waited for Maintenance.




Synopsis: Pilot on a patient transport flight noted a loss of the air conditioning system followed by a burning smell; so performed a precautionary landing and transfer of the patient to another EMS unit.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Light Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was an IFR from ZZZ to OTH. The D side gave him as filed to 060; his requested altitude. Aircraft X started flashing MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) north of CEC; I didn't think anything of it because there were a couple areas in our airspace that the aircraft will flash MSAW because they are below the MIA but they are above the MEA and therefore at a safe altitude. For some reason; I thought the MEA on V27 between CEC and OTH was 060 so I though the MSAW alert was yet another erroneous alert. The MEA on V27 is 064; the MIA is 062.Although retaining the knowledge of the MIAs and MEAs are my responsibility; the erroneous MSAW reports does desensitize us to those alerts. If the program or equipment was updated to fix this problem; aircraft flashing MSAW would elicit a faster response.




Synopsis: Seattle Center Controller reported a situation where an aircraft was below the MIA and above the MEA; resulting in the MSAW to alarm.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise; Climb
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was working the midnight shift. There was a line of weather across the airspace so every aircraft in and out of ZZZ was coming through our airspace which was unusual and every aircraft out of ZZZ1 was deviating. Essentially; anyone coming from or going east was deviating all night. I was working the entire area combined. I had worked Aircraft X about an hour earlier with VFR flight following. They were English Second Language and I had communication issues with them. At that time; I was [working] only our low altitude sectors. I think they called to request flight following on their way out of ZZZ2 and I told them unable because I was too busy. By this time; I had all of the area's sectors and was working multiple deviations in the eastern portion of our airspace. I honestly don't recall them even asking for flight following; I just know someone with a heavy accent requested flight following and I denied it due to the amount of work I had and frequency congestion. Then around XA45Z the Supervisor came down and pointed to someone squawking emergency. I tried calling in the blind to no avail. I then called TRACON and they said they just started talking to the aircraft said that they had an engine failure and asked if I wanted to work it. I said sure; however; the aircraft elected to go over to advisory frequency. I never did talk to the aircraft. All information I have is off of the ADSB and recalling the call sign from earlier flight following. Later; FSS called and said the pilot landed safely. It appeared they departed about 30 minutes later and made it to their destination on just a 1200 code.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported a VFR aircraft which they were unable to provide traffic advisories for due to workload experienced an engine failure in flight.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the arrival we descended via to 7000 feet; as per the chart the last fix altitude was 4000 feet; not sure if we should continue to 4000 feet we continued descending past 7000 feet.   When we asked Approach they cleared us to 4000 feet.  Momentary confusion on descending to 4000 feet.


Second narrative: We were on the EAGUL 5 RNAV Arrival RWY 8 transition to PHX. The FO was the pilot flying and I was the pilot not flying. The FO went over the arrival briefing and we settled on 7000 feet as the proper altitude limit for descending via the EAGUL 5; once PHX Approach cleared us to descend via the EAGUL 5. Approach gave us an early reduction to 210 knots; but we continued to descend via. Once we passed HINEY; I got it in my mind that we should actually be descending to 4000 feet. I was improperly looking at the Runway 25 transitions. I mentioned this to the FO who had noticed the 4000' altitude in small print after HINEY and began a descent. About the time we reached 6000 feet; I caught the error and told the FO to level off. I asked Approach what altitude he wanted us to be at and he told us to descend to 4000 feet. The flight was uneventful from there. It didn't appear that ATC was aware of our error.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported becoming confused as to the lowest altitude to maintain during the EAGUL 5 arrival to PHX landing east. The crew descended below 7;000 feet after HINEY before asking ATC for guidance.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DZB.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF DZB
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing rollout at Horseshoe Bay DZB; I was almost to midfield after a normal landing and normal radio calls on CTAF when a Citation calls crossing the active runway and begins crossing right in front of me. I initiated maximum braking with a hard right turn narrowly missing the nose of the aircraft with my left wing. (3 feet).




Synopsis: CE560XL Captain experienced a near collision with a CE525 after landing at DZB. The CE525 pilot announced his intention to cross the runway and crossed without noticing the CE560 on landing roll or hearing his CTAF reports.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Months with no flying activity due to COVID-19. VFR departure from Runway XX at home non-towered airport. Climbing and turning northwest to clear airport ZZZ. Looking for traffic. Checking ADS-B traffic display. Altitude alert set for 1;500 feet MSL to stay below Class B airspace of 1;700 feet. Scanned instruments in turn and switching frequency to departure when I noticed altitude at 1;900 feet MSL. Immediately descended and made check in call to Departure. Procedural skills were rusty from inactivity.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported an airspace violation due to rusty flying skills after a long absence from flying during COVID-19.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were doing the SHFSH arrival to RNAV 26R. We could hear ATC talking to traffic near us but nothing on displays. We flew outbound from VALET intersection leaving 6 for 4 thousand. Suddenly three targets blinked into existence on displays. There was no RA or TA generated.  suspected 5g interference per briefing for 5g interference.keep up the good work with communication and the monitoring of airports and aircraft.




Synopsis: Air carrier Pilot reported TCAS anomalous behavior on arrival into MIA; and cited 5G as the probable cause of the incident.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 125
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During descent in long downwind for ILS Runway 04R; both pilots observed a drone flying passed by on the left wing. Distance between 100-200 ft. same altitude.




Synopsis: BD700 Captain reported a NMAC with a UAV while on approach.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GJT.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: Tower GJT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the descent briefing; the Captain noted the risk of a high; unstabilized approach. Our mitigation strategy was to slow and descend early if given the visual approach. Approximately 20 NM from the airport we were cleared for the visual approach to Runway 11. The captain set the published FAF altitude for the ILS 11 into the altitude alerter for guidance; and we began a 1200 fpm descent. We began to cross a ridge on a 10 NM left base for Runway 11 at 8;800 ft. I began to notice the radio altimeter counting down from 2;500 ft but didn't alert the captain for fear of being nit-picky and out of the belief we would still be well clear of the ridge line. About that time; we received an EGPWS terrain warning. The Captain disconnected the autopilot and momentarily leveled the aircraft. I observed the radio altimeter displayed 1300 ft. A second later; we were clear of the ridge and continued the descent to final. We maintained visual contact with the terrain at all times. The primary cause was our misjudgment of the closure rate with the ridge. Visually; we were certain we would be well clear; but it was apparently enough to trigger an EGPWS look ahead warning. Contributing factors were our fixation on not being high and fast due to the 'High Unstabilized Approach' warnings. Another factor was my lack of confidence to question the captain's descent rate when I saw the radio altimeter counting down. In the future; I will be less hesitant to point out issues that I see to the captain. I will also be sure to balance the threat of being high and fast with the threat of descending too early.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a momentary EGPWS terrain warning on approach to GJT Runway 11 in VMC.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MSY
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the second day of new terminal opening at MSY while on the north ramp traveling west on G taxiway we were given cross Runway 29 at Taxiway F by ground control. As I turned left on F and turned on all my lights to cross I saw Aircraft Y coming down the runway in the middle of takeoff. I immediately stopped the aircraft short of the hold line of Runway 29 on Taxiway F. The First Officer asked the Ground Controller if Tower had a jet on takeoff roll; he seemed confused.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being cleared to cross a runway with an aircraft on takeoff roll at MSY airport.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach; on an extended vectored downwind; I asked for Flaps 7. A few seconds after the PNF selected Flaps 7; I felt a 'thumping' from the elevator trim wheel (I'm tall; 6'4' and my leg almost always rests against the trim wheel). I looked down and saw the elevator trim indicator at its full forward limit. The autopilot appeared to still be trying to force more nose down trim; but had reached the forward limit of trim travel. I felt three 'thumps' (visually watched probably the last one) within about 2-3 seconds. I next firmly grabbed the control wheel and disconnected the autopilot. There was not a noticeable pitch up and the nose trim annunciator did not illuminate. I decided to continue to configure the aircraft and slow a few more knots as this tends to return the trim towards a more neutral position. I did not have any more trim problems for the remainder of the flight. I did not declare an emergency as there was no annunciator and the aircraft felt fine when hand-flown. I wrote up the aircraft immediately after landing. Additionally; I had written up the elevator trim two days prior (about 8 legs prior) for the trim indicator not moving through it's full range of the white trim travel indicator. I had no other problems the previous legs with the aircraft either hand-flown or with autopilot and I believe our weight and balance to be within the proper envelope. I am unsure how to avoid a recurrence of this event. As I stated above; I believed the aircraft was airworthy and that I was operating it within the proper specifications and limitations. While using Flaps 7 is a non-standard procedure; there are some of us who occasionally use it when a long way from airport; but already slowed to below 200 KTS. It allows the large change in trim (that seems to be caused more from horizontal stab moving) from flaps zero to Flaps 15 to be broken up into two separate changes that the autopilot can keep up with easier. In addition; it is less drag; thus lower power setting and therefore fuel saving; while allowing us to get the stab movement over and done with.




Synopsis: CE560 Captain experiences a thumping sensation from the elevator trim wheel when the flaps are selected to 7 on the downwind for landing with the autopilot engaged. The elevator trim indicator is noted at its full forward position and the autopilot is disengaged; anticipating a pitch up but none occurs. A normal approach and landing ensues.
Date: 201903
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: [Station] Stores is in a unique position. We were placed under an experimental program. The entire system has been extremely difficult to implement causing numerous problems in our inventory-delivery. Problems to out stations and to local aircraft maintenance. Storekeepers stress has risen sharply trying to rise to the challenge. After [a few] months; the issues are still with us. An incident recently has caused me to file this report. [Upper management] made an agreement with [Station] Maintenance to have all deliveries made in 15 mins. Totally unrealistic in most cases. Among challenges we face are weather; traffic; speed limits; shortage of personnel; multiple deliveries at the same time; and inability to find parts on timely basis due to inefficiency of new system. I am filing this not because we have had an accident yet; but to prevent one. Pressure from management personnel who have no idea as to how our operation works; to meet short sighted goals which make people push too hard and mistakes happen. A deeper understanding of the whole situation in [Station] Stores for the last [few] months can be made available by further interviews with storekeepers. I want to add that our manager has been supportive of us. Demands are coming from his bosses.




Synopsis: Air carrier storekeeper reported that the new Parts Inventory Management System has raised safety concerns among parts delivery personnel.