elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Falcon 2000
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: [I was] working LGA final vector position; IFR weather. LGA was landing ILS 4 most of the night and the localizer had gone out of service. LGA switched to land ILS 13; PAYMI is the IAF for the ILS which is located approximately 0.5 East of TEB Airport. TEB was departing Runway 6 with an initial altitude of 2;000 FT. Traffic on base leg to Runway 13 and TEB departures converge head on until either the LGA arrival joins LOCD or TEB departure is turned. A CRJ7 was on a 220 heading level 3;000 FT sequenced in for LGA. I observed a target depart TEB and issued the traffic to the CRJ7. I then tended to other aircraft on my frequency. My scan took me back to CRJ7 and I noticed that the target had climbed through 2;000 FT and was now approaching 2;400 FT. A traffic alert was issued to CRJ7 with an immediate turn and climb away from the target. I may have had an airspace deviation in the midst of it but it was the safer option as no other aircraft were present. As CRJ7 climbed the other aircraft descended and I advised CRJ7 traffic no factor and turned him back towards the localizer. I believe; absent any TCAS/RA without my intervention; these two airplanes would have hit. The airspace complexity that exists in the New York TRACON is hard to explain to someone who does not work here. It is my recommendation that when LGA is landing ILS Runway 13; that TEB airport always be shut down to IFR traffic regardless of their runway configuration. An unnecessary risk is being posed on to the flying public to keep the users happy. Having a departing airplane level at 2;000 needing to climb head on with an arrival aircraft level at 3;000 that needs to descend is a recipe for disaster.




Synopsis: N90 Controller described a probable airspace incursion when turning an aircraft to avoid a potential conflict; the reporter noting the procedures involving these types of operation need to be changed.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MRI.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D MRI
ATC / advisory: Tower MRI
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Instructor and Student held short of Runway 25 at Merrill Field. Student dialed in the wrong frequency 126.8 (Lake Hood Towers frequency) on the left side of the instrument panel which is in front of the student and should have been frequency 126.0. The instructor did not notice that the wrong frequency was entered. The tower issued takeoff instructions to the instructor and student and when they entered the runway someone said to stop. Another aircraft was on final to Runway 25 at Merrill Field and went around. I would recommend that the frequency for Lake Hood and Merrill be changed so this mistake would not happen again. Also positioning the airplane to face the final traffic would have prevented this incident from occurring.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot doesn't see that student has wrong frequency selected and aircraft enters runway and aircraft goes around because student had selected another Tower's frequency.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
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: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight aircraft pitched up and autopilot disconnected. Level off engaged autopilot. Aircraft pitched up again saw trim move rapidly up. Tried autopilot 2 same malfunction. Manual flight still got sudden pitch up .8 units and elevator override. Declared an emergency notified company and advised flight attendants and PAX (Passengers) of divert to ABQ. Pitching stopped when ELAC (Elevator Aileron Computer)  1 & 2 pitch faulted. Made a precautionary overweight landing ABQ braking anti-skid failed during roll out. Emergency personnel saw no fluids leaking; deemed safe to proceed to gate. Stab trim malfunction.


Second narrative: While at FL370; we initially experienced the aircraft slightly pitch up followed by the autopilot disconnecting. The next 20 or so times this occurred; the pitch trim wheel spun back; in a trim up direction varying from .2 to .8 units followed by the autopilot disconnecting. We tried both autopilot 1 and 2. After a few attempts with the autopilot engaged; this continued to occur. We then kept it disconnected and manually flew the rest of the flight to a landing in ZZZ. The event only stopped occurring once we got the ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor) message ELAC (Elevator Aileron Computer) 1 PITCH FAULT; and ELAC 2 PITCH FAULT. This put the aircraft into Alternate Law. We made the decision to divert to ZZZ once this kept happening while the autopilot was disconnected. We followed through with all ECAM actions and landed in ZZZ. My only understanding from conversations with my CA (Captain) and [Maintenance Control] was a BIT (Built in Test) malfunction in one or both ELACs trying to control the auto-trim. Computer code written in the flight control computers which provide fault information and disengage before trying to control the aircraft in a faulty way.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported a stabilizer trim malfunction.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAT.TRACON, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared the RNAV RNP Z 22 at SAT.  We started the approach at MEDIN. At WAFSY intersection; Approach cancelled our approach clearance due to conflicting traffic and gave us a vector of 030 and told us to expect the Visual Approach to 22.  ATC vectored us around the traffic on final and asked if we had the traffic in sight. We saw the traffic and we were cleared the visual to 22.  I asked the PF if he would like me to extend the centerline of the approach from ZIGDA; the FAF.  He said yes and I complied.  The PF then said he was descending to the FAF altitude of 1700'.  I acknowledged; but something didn't seem right.  At that point; I lost the traffic we were following and started searching for that.  I found the traffic and then tried to sort out what was not right.  I started looking out for obstacles and noticed; while on a 45 degree right dogleg to final; a tower at 12 o'clock.  I told the PF to turn right and he did. As we rolled into the turn we got a 'CAUTION OBSTACLE' alert.  The PF started a go-around and climb.  Once clear of the obstacle; we resumed the visual using the RNAV GP for vertical guidance.  We landed without further event.We were flying this as a visual approach and could have done a more complete brief of obstacles given it was night.  Also; we noted that the obstacle was buried under several converging course lines; so I'm [not?] sure that we would have noticed it even if we had done a full brief.  Perhaps having a longer line leading from the obstacle to the elevation might help.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported being cleared for a night visual approach to Runway 22 at SAT and attempting to descend to 1;700 feet prior to the FAF. This resulted in a GPWS 'caution obstacle' for a tower less than 2.5 NM outside the FAF at 1448 feet.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Previously; ANC has typically given us direct-to clearances after takeoff. Lately; they have given us more clearances to intercept an airway; which is difficult to program into the box because of the departure:The ANC8 has a discontinuity; and then vectors before the first airway. A direct-to clearance would be much easier to understand and program and follow than these intercept an airway clearances.We were vectored westbound; away from our route; for traffic; by our initial ANC departure controller. Then he told us to fly heading 270 degrees to intercept J133; and change to a different ANC frequency. When I tried to input this into the RTE page it didn't work. I called the new controller and asked him for a direct-to clearance to JOH. The ANC controller said we had the wrong frequency and gave us another frequency change.I asked the first observer pilot for the magnetic course from TED to JOH and tried to use LEGS page to get a good intercept to join the J133. It didn't work because we were not on an intercept heading. Then I called the new ANC frequency. There was no answer.We went back to the original ANC frequency/controller and told him that we could not contact anyone on the new frequencies. We asked him for a direct-to clearance to JOH. He gave us a heading of 090 degrees and changed us to a new ANC frequency. When we contacted the new ANC controller; she gave us direct-to clearance to LAIRE; which was on the J133.During all of this the three of us were discussing that we didn't understand what our ANC controller wanted us to do. We were flying away from our route; and the heading he gave us didn't make sense. We couldn't ask him what he meant as he immediately changed our frequency after the clearance.We wondered if he confused our flight with a [different] flight that had rejected on takeoff just before our departure; due to lack of thrust in an engine: We wondered if that flight was going [elsewhere]; and our controller thought we were also departing westbound...




Synopsis: Captain of a Widebody Transport reported having issues with ANC ATC in both communications and clearances.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach to IAH on Runway 26L south out NEWLY; heading to intercept final a momentary RA flag appeared at 5;300 [ft.] for about 5 seconds on the FO (First Officer) side. Captain side showed no failure. Rest of flight uneventful no disruptions or errors




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a momentary Radio Altimeter flag enunciated during approach on the First Officer's Radio Altimeter. Flight continued to a safe landing.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operating under: Part 119
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Other Skydiving Operation
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the initial taxi out to the end of the runway; plane was running at near idle. Sounded like back fires; which was not normal. I performed a run up while holding short; and the back fire sound went away. I pulled throttle to near idle; and back fire noise came back. I told the jump master that this isn't normal; and taxied back to the ramp. Owner of the aircraft came out; and called an A&P mechanic about the situation. Mechanic said everything was in the clear. Being a low time pilot; I thought that maybe it was normal for older planes to do this. I taxied back to the end of the runway; still hearing the back fires. I did another run-up; and back fires ceased (At least the sound did). Throttle went to idle again and back fires came on. I taxied on the runway for takeoff; and put throttle to full. Full power developed and at around 20 knots indicated; the first cylinder blew and tore through the cowling. It took some of the crank case with it as well. The engine is a horizontally opposed carbureted 6 cylinder. Not sure about the brand; but I will find that out. Recoil shook the plane to the right. I performed a shut down on the runway and pushed the plane off the runway with the help of the skydivers. Engine had about 300 hours on it. After the whole situation; I am thinking the back fires I was hearing was a crack developing in the crank case; and on the power stroke the compressed air was escaping through the crack. As PIC; I thought I did a great job handling the situation; and absolutely nobody was hurt. Only damage was to the engine and cowling of the aircraft.




Synopsis: C182 pilot experienced what sounded like back fires during taxi at idle RPM and returned to the ramp for maintenance to check the aircraft. Maintenance determined the sound was normal but when takeoff was attempted a cylinder separated from the crankcase and tore through the cowl.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ROA.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ROA
ATC / advisory: TRACON ROA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was being handed off to me at 4;000 feet. I was about call the Sector to say I needed Aircraft X at 5;000 feet. I saw an aircraft at 4;900 feet which was a conflict for Aircraft X; so I waited to call so I wouldn't cause a conflict with their other traffic. Once Aircraft X was clear of that traffic they climbed Aircraft X to 5;000 feet; so I took the handoff at which point I saw Aircraft X descending through 4;900 in my 4;900 MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude). I called the Sector once I saw that and they said that Aircraft X was switched to me already. I then reached out to Aircraft X and they were on my frequency. I gave Aircraft X a low altitude alert and climb to 5;000 feet immediately. I gave a BRASHER warning to get his side of the story. While Aircraft X was in the air; they said that the previous sector gave them 4;000 feet. All arrivals should be at 5;000 feet or above. There is a MVA of 5;700 feet in the northwest part of my airspace.


Second narrative: We were doing an instructional flight. There was a possible traffic conflict for which Approach instructed us to climb to 5;000 feet leaving 4;000 feet. After the traffic was avoided; Approach cleared us back to 4;000 feet and switched us over to the next Approach. As soon as we made contact with the next Approach; they instructed to climb back to 5;000 feet due to the MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) being lower in the area. They instructed us to copy down a phone number for a possible pilot deviation.


Synopsis: ROA TRACON Trainee Controller and an instructor pilot reported the pilot was assigned 4;000 feet which is below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GIF.Airport, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 30
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: UNICOM GIF
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Entering the traffic pattern for the airport I turned to enter final which positioned my aircraft directly into an extremely bright setting sun.  The sun then blinded me at that point and I lost visual contact with the airport and runway and altitude information.  After regaining sight from the sun and while establishing my position along with altitude in relation to the airport and runway I observed another aircraft that appeared to be flying in the opposite direction about 200 feet away.  I then took an evasive maneuver and cleared the traffic.  At that point I was no longer in position to continue the landing and I executed a VFR go around and re entered the traffic pattern and landed without further incident.  What caused this incident was turning on final directly into the extremely bright setting sun which blinded me. To prevent this from happening again I will use a runway if available that is not in line of sight with the sun or fly to an alternative airport without conflict with the setting sun or wait until sunset.




Synopsis: A pilot reported after turning onto final at a non towered airport they were temporarily blinded by direct sunlight and had a NMAC with opposite direction traffic.
Date: 201903
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the lead. I preplanned the trip with the DG in Pit 1 along with the required 15 bag min. Time to load: DG went up 1st and it was put in the pit. Bags went up next as I scanned them into pit 3. My thought process that I would put the last 15 - 20 up in pit 1 not sure how I forgot to do that. The plane pushes on time and I close out the trip. I was called back to the gate to rectify the problem. Myself and another [Manager] went out to the aircraft waiting in the alley. I plug in to get the ok to open front pit and move DG from 1 to 3 and have it secured. Meanwhile I am explaining the situation to the pilot and told him that I made a mistake and loaded the DG without the bag requirement. I apologized for my mistake and told him that I knew better.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported incorrectly loading Hazmat. Additionally reported being summoned to correct the Hazmat load.