elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just after takeoff; we both noticed a smoke odor. Shortly thereafter; a Flight Attendant called. The Captain answered and was told something like 'we may have a fire in the cabin.' He declared an emergency and we started downwind. We were turned in for a short final and landed; turning off to the right on Charlie. We noticed the cockpit temperature was in the 90's and we turned off the left pack. After talking with the fire department and flight attendants and hearing that they did not see smoke or fire at that point; the Captain decided to not evacuate and we returned to our gate.


Second narrative: Immediately noticed the smell of something burning. Could not tell initially if it was electrical; mechanical; etc. Approximately 1;000 feet received Cabin Call saying they thought we were 'on fire' or 'had a fire.' I told them we would be landing immediately. Co-pilot was flying; I told her to turn right; plan a right downwind. Notified ATC we had a possible fire; declared an emergency; and told them we intended to make right traffic for immediate landing. There were frequency changes; request for FOB and SOB. First Officer set up for landing while I tried to keep up with ATC. As we descended the burning smell started to dissipate; so I was convinced we were not 'on fire' Decided not to have them prep cabin as we had turned final at this point. Normal landing and immediately requested rescue crews observations for smoke. They reported no smoke; left pack temp went full hot; so we turned it off. Normal taxi back to gate.


Synopsis: On takeoff B757 flight crew smells smoke and moments later a call from the cabin indicates there may be a fire. Crew elects to return immediately and does so. An overheated pack is suspected and turned off after landing.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E A80
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Cleared to 14000 FT on climbout. ATC called vfr traffic at 14;500; 10 o'clock position. We responded 'not in sight'. ATC re-iterated 'maintain 14000'. Approaching 14000 FT received a tcas ta which quickly changed to a tcas 'descend now' as we leveled at 14000 FT. 'Descend now' changed to 'monitor vertical speed' which then changed to 'clear of conflict'. Lowest altitude during manuever was 13800 FT.


Second narrative: Leveled at 14;000 per ATL departure clearance. ATC gave us a traffic advisory for a VFR aircraft that was suppose to level at 14;500. While at 14;000; we both notice the VFR traffic came within +300 feet of our altitude. We then got a TCAS RA 'descend'. The Captain followed proper TCAS procedures and maneuvered our aircraft to 13;800. There was no further conflict and we reported TCAS descent to ATL departure control.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported receiving a TCAS RA departing ATL when a VFR aircraft came within 300 FT of their altitude.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the local control position at TEB training a fellow controller.  We received a release for a 19 Teterboro 9 departure off runway 19; sequenced behind a regional carrier landing at EWR.  My supervisor advised when a good time to depart the aircraft off runway 19; at which time I instructed my trainee to do so. The arrival for EWR had slowed to approximately 130 knots and the departure off runway 19 at TEB increased to a speed of 360 knots within miles off the departure end.  This resulted in a loss of separation between the two aircraft.  My recommendation is to allow more space between a departure off of runway 19; when you know the aircraft arriving runway 19 has decreased speed to this extent.


Second narrative: Aircraft X; filed an IFR flight plan.  Pilot requested to depart runway 19 via the teb9 dep sid. This request conflicts with EWR airport arrivals which fly directly overhead TEB at 3000 feet descending to 1800 feet.  Due to this conflict; a 10 mile gap is needed between EWR arrivals to accommodate a TEB dep off runway 19.  A release was obtained from N90 behind a large aircraft. When he departed; being a high speed jet; his speed was faster than what we are used to here. Once airborne; his ground speed was clocked at 350 knots; which caused him to lose separation. This is in clear violation of the 200 knot departure restriction; and the 250 knot Class D restriction.I recommend that pilots; especially military pilots refresh their knowledge of procedures inside civilian airspace.


Synopsis: TEB CPC and FLM report of a high speed military aircraft departing and losing separation due to the aircraft exceeding the speed limits on departure.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B DTW
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When climbing out on the TRMML1 departure we climbed at 250 all the way up until 11;000 feet. Reaching 11k we accelerated and because of the new altitude issued (11;000) I forgot about the 280 speed restriction that was on the departure. I had accelerated to 320 knots when ATC told us to resume normal speed. Nothing was said to ATC and ATC did not say anything to us about the speed deviation. We then remembered about the 280 speed restriction that we had exceeded. ATC issued a new altitude for us which made me think that I could accelerate. I had personally forgot about the 280 knot restriction. Once they told us normal speed we had realized we were already faster. Detroit is the only place where they want you slow on departure. Every other major airport wants you to accelerate as fast as you can right away. I think the 280 kt restriction needs to be re-evaluated.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported exceeding speed restriction on departure out of DTW.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on a FAR 91 IFR flight to TEB; approx. 30 NM south of TEB in night VMC conditions. ATC had cleared us direct VINGS maintain 3000 intercept the localizer for ILS 6 approach TEB. While still south of VINGS and level at 3000 ATC called VFR traffic approx. 11 o'clock 5 nm 500 ft below. After a short period ATC announced that the traffic appeared to be climbing; we informed him that we did not have the traffic in sight. ATC then issued a clearance to climb to 4000; turn left to 110 degrees; at the same time we received a TCAS RA commanding a DESCENT. We complied with the RA; informed ATC that we were complying with an RA; and continued our turn. Once we had descended to approx. 2500 ft the TCAS announced CLEAR OF CONFLICT. We again told ATC that we had to comply with an RA and said that we could now return to a previous clearance. We were recleared direct to VINGS and continued to TEB and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: G-IV Captain reported an NMAC on arrival to TEB.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the wingman pilot of a section of [Aircraft]. We were a standard formation until reaching ZZZ. Due to system issues; I did not have electronic means to measure my distance from the lead aircraft. The two primary electronic systems that we use; the Air-Air TACAN and Datalink; were both inoperative. After departing ZZZ; I lost visual sight of the lead aircraft. Almost immediately following the lost sight event; my aircraft lost the ability to communicate to ATC; the lead aircraft; and with the other crew member in the cockpit. This lost comm event lasted approximately 3-5 minutes. The first priority was to ensure deconfliction from my lead aircraft; which I accomplished via lateral separation. This sequence of events led to us not maintaining standard formation and we got to about eight miles from the lead aircraft.After regaining communications; I requested a separate squawk code and clearance from ATC. Once I received my clearance; the deviation/event was complete.After a thorough debrief; one step that I should have accomplished was to squawk [priority] or lost comm. Either one of these codes would have kept ATC in the loop and they could have adjusted accordingly.




Synopsis: Pilot reported lost comms during a formation flight.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
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: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at cruise FL360; we received an ECAM advisory for low oil quantity on the Number 2 engine. After consulting with Dispatch and Maintenance Control about continuing the flight with this advisory a decision was made to divert to ZZZ. The decision to divert was made prior to ZZZZZ Intersection. In order to facilitate a direct routing to ZZZ; we requested priority handling with ATC. After this decision was made the oil pressure began to deteriorate; it reached the point where the ECAM low oil pressure procedure activated. We complied with the ECAM procedure and shut the engine down. Advised ATC the we were changing our status to a priority handling aircraft; and advised Dispatch of the engine shutdown; with their concurrence we continued to ZZZ and made an overweight landing. A gradual descent from cruise altitude was flown while we complied with ECAM; QRH and company procedures. This gradual descent and landing at ZZZ also facilitated a landing closer to maximum landing weight.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported receiving a low oil ECAM warning for the Number 2 engine during cruise.  The crew followed QRH procedures and decided to shut the engine down and divert to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: SR22
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was training an R-side and Aircraft X going to Rockwall (F47) was at 040 and requested lower. Trainee issued 025 and we called to apreq (approval request) with D10. They told us the lowest they could go is 030. I climbed Aircraft X up to 030 and he then reported and aircraft directly underneath him. I scoped in and only saw two aircraft; but neither with traffic for him yet he still said there was an aircraft right under him. I called Approach and asked them if they saw anything and they said they just now were able to see someone. As they said that I finally was able to see the primary target begin to diverge from underneath the target of Aircraft X. After switching the aircraft to D10; I had the CIC (Controller-in-Charge) call the Airport Manager to get the pilot to call us. After speaking with the pilot; he said had I [not] climbed him to 030; he thinks he would have hit the other aircraft and that he may have come to within 125 feet of him.




Synopsis: ZFW Controller reported a NMAC between an aircraft under ZFW Control and a VFR aircraft not under ATC Control.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SJU.Airport, PR
Light: Night
Aircraft: A310
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C SJU
ATC / advisory: Tower SJU
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The SJU RNAV SID 5-10 page states in bold print: After takeoff; contact Departure Control on assigned frequency. We understood this to direct an automatic switch after takeoff. Upon contacting Departure; we were told to return to Tower Frequency. Tower Controller asked why we changed frequencies without being told. I stated directions in SID departure procedure. Tower stated to wait for frequency change in future. Tower then switched us to Departure without further comment.  I reviewed other SIDs and this verbiage was not included. Many international locations have this directive so it was confusing to read and then be reprimanded for doing as SID directs.

Callback: The reporter clarified that his airline utilized commercially provided aero charts and that 5-10 is the identifier for the 'descriptive narrative page' for the ACONY RNAV SID. This chart supplier utilizes separate pages for the 'narrative' and the 'graphic depiction' of each SID and/or STAR. Although he didn't have access to his charts during the callback; his recollection was that the statement regarding contacting Departure after takeoff was in 'BOLD PRINT' and appeared to apply to all SJU SIDS not just the ACONY.In a second callback reporter clarified that his reference to 'other SIDs' referred to those at other airports (primarily domestic) which 'do' require that the Tower 'clear' flights to contact Departure--as ATC in San Juan had scolded him for his failure to await. He reaffirmed that the 5-10 chart made it quite apparent that the bold print directive to contact Departure Control after takeoff applied to at least the ACONY and GLADA SIDS and could be read so as to apply to all SIDs.



Synopsis: An A310 flight crew departing SJU contacted Departure immediately after departure as directed by the narrative page of their commercially (2) provided ACONY RNAV SID procedure. Departure sent them back to the Tower to receive clearance to change frequencies.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other Angel Flight
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Executed ILS to Runway 5 approach descending to 480 MSL; broke out from overcast and sighted runway. Decided to land but had 9-10 KT tailwind and consumed runway length rapidly. The Localizer Back Course to Runway 32 [23] was the approach in use at the time. According to ATIS; the ILS to 5 was available upon request. Choosing the ILS to 5 provided lower minimums but resulted in the 9 to 10 KT tailwind which caused the rapid consumption of runway length. Made the decision to land and stop the aircraft without incident which appeared possible at the time. Aircraft landed but did not get stopped in time. Ran off the end of Runway 5 and collided with two of the 5 approach lights to Runway 23.




Synopsis: BE58 pilot reports landing on a 5;000 FT runway with a ten knot tailwind and not being able to stop prior to the end of the runway causing damage to the aircraft and approach lights.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The seatbelt sign was turned on due to light chop in cruise at FL300. 10 minutes later; I instructed the flight attendants on the interphone to take their jump seats due to the continuing; and increasing light turbulence; and told them they would probably need to remain seated for the duration of the flight due to the weather that was quickly approaching the destination airport. The weather radar was on; tilt at 1.5 degrees down with the closest storm returns to the southeast at approximately 40 miles; and scattered light returns within 10 miles to the southeast. We were still at cruise altitude of FL300 in IMC conditions; and we were deviating west of course to maintain separation from the weather. [Later]; we unexpectedly encountered severe turbulence with sudden onset. We experienced a 2000+ fpm rate of descent; losing 600 feet of altitude before the Pilot Flying was able to recover and climb the aircraft back to FL300. I immediately notified ATC of the severe turbulence (which seemed to last about 30 seconds; but was probably shorter in duration) and uncommanded descent and excessive descent rate. ATC inquired if we needed assistance; which I declined. I called the seated flight attendants on the interphone to inquire if there were any injuries or aircraft damage noted; and they replied that everyone was okay in the cabin and no damage was noted. I also notified Dispatch immediately after receiving the report from the flight attendants. We continued on to destination and made an uneventful landing. I then sent a code to maintenance to report the severe turbulence encounter. After exiting the aircraft; the [Flight Manager] called and I discussed the incident with him; and then I called Dispatch to further discuss the incident.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported encountered severe turbulence enroute at cruise altitude.