elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MYNN.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA; TRACON MYNN
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Turboprop Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Handed off from Miami Center to Nassau Approach overhead RAJAY intersection enroute to MYNN airport. NAS Approach cleared our flight to descend from 11;000 feet to 2000 feet and proceed direct to MUNIE intersection. My FO read back the clearance and clarified the fix; and as I initiated the descent I looked up to see a Cessna Caravan approaching; opposite direction. I stopped the descent and returned to 11;000' as the Caravan passed 500' directly below.  We advised Nassau approach that we had deviated to avoid a collision and were advised that they '...don't know anything about that aircraft. We aren't talking to them.'In this situation; after receiving a clearance to descend with no traffic advisory issued; it was left to eyesight and reaction time to avoid a collision; especially at a closure rate near 400 knots.  This being the third RA that I've experienced in Nassau's airspace--almost always just inside of RAJAY--I feel that it is an issue that needs to be addressed.




Synopsis: An SF340 flight descending into MYNN; cleared to descend to 8;000 feet; narrowly avoided an NMAC with an opposite direction Cessna Caravan.  Approach advised they were not talking to them.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach to ZZZ; aircraft was receiving vectors to final for the ILS XY. We were told to maintain 5100 ft which we were adhering to as well. The aircraft was approximately 3-5 miles from the NDB at a heading of approximately 080 and an altitude of 5100. We were given the final vector to intercept and cleared for the approach (HDG 020 maintain 5100 ft until established clear for ILS XY) when we simultaneously received the aural 'Terrain; Terrain'. Captain added thrust; called for go around. Crew accomplished the go around. During climb out informed ATC we were going around. ATC confirmed the altitude that we were at when we received the warning and gave us vectors back out for the ILS XY at a higher intercept altitude. The weather was IMC when we received the terrain warning. We had briefed the terrain; and obstacles in the area as well as the escape maneuver prior to our initial descent into ZZZ. Both MFDs had terrain sweeping active and were showing little to no terrain in our area (few spots of green). On the ground we debriefed what occurred and determined that initiating the go around after 'terrain' in IMC conditions was the correct course of action because we could not confirm if it was an erroneous warning. Cause: possible erroneous warning or inappropriate vectoring altitude. Suggestions: make sure verify aircraft position and all altitudes with company charts provided and ATC as well as brief procedures for terrain and go around when operating in airports with mountainous terrain and high volume of go arounds especially when IMC exists.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported a Terrain Warning while on vectors to final.
Date: 201908
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Motor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff and initial climb auto trim and electric trim via trim switch on pilot control wheel operated normally. Around 3;000 ft. I tried to trim via trim switch with no success. As we accelerated more control force was required and neither auto trim nor electric trim via control wheel switch would work. I briefed the Captain on the issue then we transferred the controls to allow the Captain to try his trim switch with no luck. We transferred control back to me while he ran appropriate checklists and communicated to all parties. Afterwards we decided to air return to ZZZ. Aircraft was hand flown utilizing manual pitch trim back to a normal approach and landing in ZZZ.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported an auto and electric trim system anomaly resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Departure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ground Control cleared Flight AB on local IFR flight plan; Flight AB requested own navigation to VOR for full procedure at 2;000 feet. The MVA throughout most of ZZZ airspace is 2;400 feet and normal practice is to clear all IFR aircraft above the MVA. Ground Control did not coordinate the abnormal altitude with Local Control. I did not catch the altitude and due to traffic Flight AB could not get own navigation on departure. I issued a departure heading to Flight AB to avoid traffic that put Flight AB into a MVA of 2;400 feet.Ground Control should only issue IFR aircraft altitudes at or above MVA.


Second narrative: Flight AB was assigned 2;000 feet from the Clearance Delivery position on a local IFR flight plan. The request was to fly their own navigation for full VOR Runway XX circle to Runway X approach. Flight AB was assigned a 080 heading on departure that goes into a 2;400 foot MVA area. The weather at the airport was 10 miles/CLR. I climbed the aircraft to 3;000 feet to get them above the MVA and started the process of getting him on course to the VOR for their approach. There was training on Local Control taking place and social distancing guidelines make it difficult for the OJTI to review the strip marking. The 080 heading is near 180 degrees off what the Departure Controller would expect. The Local Controller should coordinate aircraft that are that far out range of their flight plan. Review of strips prior to sending it the approach would help all controllers be on the same page.


Synopsis: TRACON Controllers reported social distancing; during the training period; may have contributed to an incorrect altitude assigned to the aircraft.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 40
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
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
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Passing FL395 the aircraft lost cabin pressure; the emergency pressurization system activated and the crew reported this to the controlling agency whilst following the checklist and standard operating procedures published by the aircraft manufacturer. No other abnormalities occurred.




Synopsis: LR-40XR Captain reported loss of cabin pressure at FL395.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B SFO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying VFR from the coastline toward SJC airspace. I was below the SFO class B shelf when I began checking the destination weather. I drifted up to the bottom of the class B shelf. The altitude gain appears to have been caused by ridge lift. I do not believe that I entered class B; but it is possible; depending on what altimeter setting the radar facility was using. As soon as I noticed I was near the shelf altitude; I descended well clear. I should have been more aware of the possibility of ridge lift and maintained a larger altitude margin to the class B shelf. I also could have moved my route 3 miles West; where the shelf is 2;000 feet higher; to allow a larger altitude margin to the class B shelf while maintaining clearance above the ridge.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported inadvertent entry into SFO Class B airspace.
Date: 201403
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Enroute to BOS at FL370; weight 75;000 LBS; minimum drag .72 Mach. There was weather paralleling our flight SIGMETs and moving 270 degrees at 40 KTS. The weather was curving northeast to BOS we heard some reroutes going on so I pulled out the enroute charts and started to look at routes and listen to HIWAS on the VOR frequencies. The First Officer was flying and also had some approach plates out. As I remember the First Officer was adjusting power and we were at .79 Mach when suddenly the autopilot kicked off. I thought at first it was the yaw damper. I looked and saw red approaching the airspeed tape speed; and the Flight Director was showing a climb.  Just then the First Officer pushed the yoke down about 3 or 4 degrees and pushed power up to TOGA. I called ATC and asked for lower about 4 thousand feet.  We were cleared to FL330 at about FL358. The First Officer had recovered so I asked for FL350 and was cleared to FL350. I asked if there was any traffic near us and ATC said there was at FL310 and no problem for us.    I believe some of this was because I had flown with this First Officer previously and he was a Captain on CRJ-200 for a few years. I felt very comfortable riding with an experienced pilot; but he had just finished OE and had been off for a month; so I was aware of his experience. I guess I became very complacent and I know better; we all make mistakes. I believe the Swiss Cheese Syndrome is very true; we had a threat; and nobody caught it. In the past I have flown with distracted first officers and asked if they wanted me to fly and would bring them back to the job at hand this time I was the distracted one; but thanks to our superb training we have trained in high altitude stalls and we both reacted to our training for recovery.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reports an underspeed condition at FL370 resulting in autopilot disconnect and loss of 1;200 FT before the flying First Officer can add thrust and recover. The Captain was occupied with weather and planning a possible reroute.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EMT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D EMT
ATC / advisory: Tower EMT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
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; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was conducting OJTI on the Local position.  The developmental had been on the ground position prior to the training session and was offered a break but declined it.  It was a nice sunny clear day with 3-4 in the VFR pattern consistently throughout the training session with steady departures and arrivals to the airport.  The developmental had been recommended for certification the prior week and told that if he makes a mistake; to fix it and continue working the traffic. At the time of the NMAC there were multiple aircraft in the pattern; departures to get out along with aircraft sequenced to land.  The developmental told Aircraft Y to continue upwind to the 60 freeway and that his crosswind was approved at the 60 freeway. The developmental forgot about Aircraft Y.   Aircraft X had been in the pattern and did a touch and go.   He told them to turn crosswind.  He turned Aircraft X right into the Aircraft Y and issued no traffic to either aircraft.  The Aircraft X advised tower about the Aircraft Y and that they came within 50ft of each other.  The developmental then realized what had happened.  It was discussed and briefed at a later time.When you see your developmental struggling to keep afloat offer them a break and breather.  Not let your developmental take things so far out that you as the instructor can't keep up with what they're control judgment is and be more aware and on top of what your trainee is doing.




Synopsis: EMT Local Control Instructor reports while training; he let his Developmental get two aircraft get too close together; causing an NMAC report by one of the pilots.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: RV-3
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon landing; my brakes locked causing a nose over on the runway. My prop struck the ground and was largely destroyed. My wheel pants suffered damage; but should be repairable. I believe the situation was caused by a malfunction of the parking brake valve as it is the only thing in the braking system that is common to both the left and right brakes.Based on my reading of NTSB Rule 830 and what limited interpretive guidance I can find; I do not believe this is a reportable incident or accident.I am submitting this ASRS report because I think it would be helpful if the NTSB provided a plain language explanation of when something needs to be reported as an incident and when it is not necessary.I have been a licensed attorney since [year]. I'm currently also employed as a Part 121 [pilot]. I share this information because it is my intention to be fully compliant with NTSB Rule 830 reporting requirements. I spent a significant amount of time researching the reporting requirements and there is nothing clear about them. There are inconsistencies and vague language within the Rule and within the various interpretations of the Rule. I believe such issues within the language of the Rule could allow an overzealous FAA inspector to interpret the Rule contrary to the intent of lawmakers.If I'm having these kinds of problems and concerns as a licensed attorney and an airline pilot; I'm quite certain the average Joe; GA pilot would be struggling; too. It's sad when a person can have a compliant attitude and intent; but be still be left with an unclear path to compliance.




Synopsis: RV3 pilot reported the aircraft brakes locked on landing causing loss of control and aircraft damage. Pilot described difficulty interpreting NTSB Rule 830.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LLLL.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Near the entry to the TLV FIR enroute SOLIS intersection for the Gefin 1C STAR;  EICAS FOR ADS B L OUT; later received EICAS GPS R I assumed it was part of the Israeli security measures. The ADS EICAS kept returning after completing the non-normal checklist; it was distracting during a busy time. I noticed that the course deviation indicator on the PFD had turned amber; with RNP 1.0 ANP 1.2 displayed. I advised ATC that ANP was 1.25; and asked them to monitor our position. I advised ATC that ANP was now 1.5; and asked them for radar vectors. The aircraft ahead of us had not reported any problems; but when Approach Control handed them off to Tower; they advise the Approach Controller that radar factors would be recommended. ATC vectored us very tight on to the localizer; barely outside of the final approach fix. The auto pilot captured the localizer and S turned through the localizer before stabilizing. Altitude capture occurred at 3;400 feet the final approach fix altitude; before glide slope capture. We reached almost a dot high on the glide slope; then set altitude to 200 feet field elevation and selectived vertical speed -1000  to capture the glideslope. Conditions were CAVOC; with the runway in sight; it was still daylight; but the approach and runway lights were on; appearing to be full bright. We met our requirements for the 1;500; 1;000; and 500 foot gates with a normal landing.




Synopsis: First Officer reported experiencing navigation and approach guidance problems due to GPS signal disruption.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Reject occurred on Runway 25 DEN. During the before takeoff check the Takeoff config switch was checked and did not sound. At around 80-85 knots the Takeoff Config horn sounded. The Captain rejected and we exited the runway uneventfully. We advised DEN Tower that we wanted time to run checklist and would advise. We ran the checklist and consulted brake cooling chart and found everything to be normal and none of the items that would cause the horn to sound were evident. We requested flaps 5 data and returned to the runway and took off without any further issues.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported they rejected the takeoff at DEN at about 80kts when the takeoff warning horn sounded. No cause for the warning was found.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken

Narrative: I am the owner of Aircraft X based at ZZZ. I was looking at FlightAware.com and saw that my tail number was located [in another state] AND HAD THE ADSB (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast) TURNED ON AT [a certain date and time]. This cannot be. I was working on my aircraft in my hangar at this same time and date this entire day. This is a 766 nautical mile discrepancy in location. I am concerned that someone else is using my tail number. I don't want to be accused of a possible violation that I am not guilty of.




Synopsis: Aircraft owner reported that an aviation website showed his aircraft in a different location than it actually was.