elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Location: TSP.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Travelair 95
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Other Traffic Pattern
Airspace: Class G ZLA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Tehachapi Municipal (TSP) and Mountain Valley airport (L94) are both located in the Tehachapi Valley; CA; 2.2 [2.196] NM apart based on the FAA airport/facilities directory latitude/longitude information. L94 has parallel runways; 09L-27R and 09R-27L. Right traffic is prescribed for 27R and left traffic for 27L. TSP has one runway; 29-11; with currently prescribed left traffic for 29 and right traffic for 11. L94 is a glider port and has extensive operations going on spring through fall months. Twin engine aircraft maintaining recommended safe airspeeds on downwind and base leg experience uncomfortable angles of bank when trying to split the distance difference [2.2 NM] between these airports; sometimes causing an overshoot of the turn to final depending on wind and atmospheric conditions. Additionally; executive/corporate jet aircraft up through Category C fly into TSP. Research into the FAA website on traffic pattern establishment yields Order JO 7400.2J; Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; FIG 6-3-11; traffic pattern airspace; which specifies distances for patterns by Aircraft Category. Even for Category A aircraft; the prescribed offset from centerline distance of 1.25 NM has the right traffic for L94; 27R; and left traffic for TSP; 29; overlaying each other. The offset for Category C aircraft of 2.25 NM would conflict both runway traffic patterns at L94. The Aeronautical Information Manual indicates that traffic patterns should not overlay population areas [if possible]. The left/right traffic patterns of TSP now overlay the majority of the business area and a large percentage of the population area to include elementary and high schools; all on the south side of the runway. The north side of the runway is sparsely developed. While there is a terrain single point terrain hazard approximately mid-field on the north side; this could be relieved by increasing the traffic pattern altitude appropriately. The continued use of the left 29; right 11 traffic patterns at TSP constitute a hazard to air navigation of these two airports and possible ground population in an emergency event.




Synopsis: A pilot reported potential traffic conflicts between L94 Runway 9L/27R traffic which turned north bound and traffic on right downwind TSP Runway 11 and left downwind TSP Runway 29.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BUR; Class D WHP
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I flew the RNAV Visual to Runway 15. While just lining up for final past GOBLT; I heard a GA aircraft check in with SoCal reporting he just departed WHP. Knowing I was roughly abeam WHP I looked down to TCAS and saw him 200 ft lower than us slightly behind maybe a mile or less. I tried to give a couple glances out the window to spot him; but was not able to see him and I returned my attention to flying the remainder of the approach. We never got a TCAS or a traffic call from ATC; but it kind of made me go 'hmm'.A few days after; I just happened to get a call from a flight instructor friend of mine that teaches out of WHP. He called to discuss this very approach. He claims that the WHP Tower claims as well that this approach violates their Class D airspace. WHP has a great deal of student pilots and they are concerned about this approach for wake turbulence both from GA aircraft arriving from and departing to the north (Newhall Pass) and for Runway 12 departures. Just thought I'd pass this concern along.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported the BUR RNAV Runway 15 Approach possibly violates WHP airspace.
Date: 201504
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Cockpit/Cabin Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Flight Attendant (FA) B and I were in the middle of service when the call and flashing light came in emergency. The other FA went to the aft galley and stated the nature of emergency; she made two more attempts before motioning me to come to the back galley. I then attempted to communicate with no response from the flight deck.  We then hung up the phone and went to the front of the aircraft; where we attempted to make contact via phone. Again at that time no response from the flight deck. We knocked on the flight deck door and tried communicating through the door with no response. The B FA picked up the phone and made a PA saying the Captain's name. I then knocked once more on the flight deck door with still no response. We then got a note through the door asking what was wrong. After communicating via notes and a clear zone established the flight deck door was opened. We then realized no one had pressed the emergency button although it kept going off. So we continued flight communication via notes for the remainder of the flight. The emergency light and chimes kept going off the rest of the flight and all through the landing.




Synopsis: EMB175 Flight Attendant reports the emergency call lights flashing in the galley; but no answer from the flight crew when the phone is picked up. Attempted communication from the forward station is also unsuccessful. Notes are eventually passed between the flight attendants and the pilots and it is determined that the interphone system malfunctioned.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a stage 2 private check short field landing; my student landed and applied an unnecessary amount of braking which resulted in the airplane skidding and then our left tire blowing. I did call for flight controls once we started skidding but it was too late. Once the tire was blown I had controls and was able to keep the airplane from leaving the runway surface. Afterward we secured the aircraft; called the fbo to advise them we were stuck on the runway and to NOTAM it closed. Then I called Maintenance so they could come out and change our tire.Practice doing short field landings to full stops with students and emphasize braking should only be as necessary to stop in required distance while maintaining safety and positive aircraft control.




Synopsis: DA40 Instructor Pilot reported his student used too much brake pressure on the landing roll; resulting in a blown tire and loss of directional control.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cabin Furnishing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were parked [and] the plane had just been taxied over from the hangar by Maintenance. When I got on the airplane I noticed we were missing the placard above the PSU (Passenger Service Unit) panel that instructs how to close the MCD (Main Cabin Door). When Maintenance brought the placard he told me to stop pointing out the missing placard; even though it's a no go item. I'm not sure why the Maintenance guy told me to stop pointing out the missing placards. When airplanes go through the hangar for Maintenance; maybe they start looking for these missing no go placards.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Flight Attendant reported noticing a missing placard above the PSU panel that instructed how to close the MCD.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Number 1 Engine Bleed Leak indication after takeoff. First Officer; flying pilot; flew aircraft. Captain; pilot not flying; complied with Emergency Procedures Checklist. Emergency declared. Returned for landing; overweight landing. Rate of touchdown less than 300 FPM. Flight returned to gate; passengers deplaned. Company and Maintenance notified. Appropriate logbook entries made.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 number 1 Engine Bleed Leak System alerted after takeoff so an emergency was declared; the checklist completed and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DIJ.Airport, ID
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon departing DIJ; a non-towered airport; we were climbing at maximum rate because of surrounding terrain. We had departed VFR since; because of the surrounding mountains; we are not able to establish radio contact with ATC until 9;000 FT AGL where we obtain our IFR clearance. The nose of the aircraft was high because of the maximum rate of climb speed somewhat restricting visibility. My co-pilot spotted a balloon near the direction we were headed. I immediately made a 45 degree right turn and continued to climb. I saw the balloon off to the left during the turn about 2;000 FT below and around a mile away; perhaps a little less. If the occupants of the balloon saw us they might have been concerned. This was the first time we had encountered a balloon when departing DIJ. I usually give balloons a much wider berth and will be even more vigilant in the future to insure better separation.




Synopsis: Pilot departing DIJ airport reports of a balloon in conflict with his aircraft as he climbs out. Pilot turns and avoids balloon.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PVD.TRACON, RI
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PVD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PVD
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had just assumed the radar position in which prior training had occurred.  As a result of this training I believe the some aircraft were out of an efficient/good position for the approach sequence.  I attempted to fix this situation which contributed to complexity.  I was working multiple sectors/frequency in which frequency congestion was apparent with aircraft stepping on one another.  Aircraft Y; VFR requested a practice approach.  I advised the aircraft to expect vectors for the sequence as he was going to be delayed slightly due to other inbound traffic.  I assigned Aircraft Y a vector west for the final and restricted his altitude at or below 2;500.  The aircraft was level and 2;500 and never deviated from that altitude.  Inbound from the west was Aircraft X; IFR. Aircraft X was issued a heading to parallel final due to slower aircraft on the approach; and was issued a decent to 3;000 from 5;000.  Aircraft X leveled at 3;000 for a few miles and I issued a turn for a box pattern to base.  Aircraft X level at 3;000 and Aircraft Y level and restricted at or below 2;500 appeared to be converging and traffic was issued to Aircraft X.  At approximately 1 mile apart Aircraft X started descending and advised they were responding to an RA.  This response to the RA caused a Lack Of Separation Standards (LOSS) and created a real collision hazard. There was no other traffic in the immediate area.It is my understanding that certain company policies require pilot action with regards to a TCAS RAs however in this instance it caused a potential collision that was otherwise a controlled and safe operation.  A review of airline TCAS policies and or software upgrade to TCAS systems may prevent this hazard in the future.




Synopsis: A PVD TRACON Controller reported of a loss of separation when an IFR aircraft reacting to an RA descends into the altitude structure of a VFR aircraft. The Controller would like a review of airline TCAS policies and/or a software update to the TCAS System.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Aileron
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Immediately after takeoff from ZZZ; I noticed a strong tendency to roll right. I trimmed the ailerons to fly level which required the roll trim to be placed 1/4 of the way to full left trim which is more than usual. I also noticed the controls felt a little lighter than normal.  Above 10000 ft and accelerating to 280 kts I thought the controls and especially the ailerons were much lighter than normal. I mentioned this to the Captain and he hand flew for a little and agreed it did not feel normal. He gave the controls back to me and he ran through a QRH checklist and I slowed to 200 kts and the plane flew more normal. After communicating with dispatch; we diverted to ZZZ1 and flew around to burn off enough fuel to get under our max landing weight. The approach and landing was uneventful.Because I was hand flying the plane during the climb; I noticed the unusually light aileron feel as well as the greater amount of roll trim required to keep the plane flying level. The Captain hand flew for a bit and agreed.




Synopsis: Co-Pilot reported problems with the aircraft not trimming correctly and diverted to another destination.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RKSI.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center RKRR
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not 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
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff I needed to reference the Flight Operations Manual and found that all [company data] items were grayed out and could not be opened. After landing; I turned the data on to find I had 110 updates needed. I had a current iPad prior to takeoff. The [company data feature] had a 100% failure.




Synopsis: B747 First Officer reported he was unable to access company data on his iPad.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed to pick up my wife.  I then attempted to depart [a turf] runway.  During the takeoff roll approximately 55-60 knots I decided to abort the takeoff.  I reduced engine power to idle and allowed aircraft to coast to a stop.  During the deceleration; the aircraft entered an area of loose soil and the nose gear subsequently collapsed.  The aircraft came to a stop nose down on the cowling.




Synopsis: Pilot of a PA-46 reported aborting his takeoff from a turf runway and hit an area of loose soil that collapsed the nose gear.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JHM.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [Flight] was operating with a deferred Number 2 Bleed Valve. Due to this; PACK Number 2 was not operating in flight. On approach into JHM; weather had dropped below minimum required visibility; so a missed approach was executed. At the time; conditions were fairly smooth with occasional light chop and an overcast layer above our altitude. During the missed approach procedure; the Flight Attendant contacted the flight deck to advise that passengers had been complaining about high temperatures since soon after departure from [departure airport] and were requesting that air conditioning be turned on. Upon checking the cabin temperature gauge; we found it was reading 30 degrees Celsius or more despite appropriate settings. The Flight Attendant also advised that two passengers had vomited. After checking the weather in JHM; we found that it had further deteriorated and a diversion was necessary. I addressed the passengers; stating that we would be diverting to our filed alternate. I also communicated our awareness of the air conditioning problem and that we would be landing in ten minutes. We continued the diversion to [our alternate] and landed safely. After consulting with all crewmembers; I decided that we could not continue further passenger carrying operations safely due to high cabin temperatures in flight. Due to daytime weather conditions in Hawai'i; operations with a single PACK do not provide adequate cooling to the aircraft interior. This especially true when the PACK not operating is the right hand side Number 2 unit; as Number 2 is primary for cooling the passenger cabin.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew was operating an aircraft with one of two PACKS deferred. The cabin temperature was approximately 30 degrees C. After diverting to their alternate airport; the flight crew refused the aircraft due to high cabin temperatures.