elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Heavy Transport; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Large Transport departed Runway 18L and turned eastbound reaching 2;000 FT. A Heavy Airbus; also on an eastbound routing; departed Runway 18L in trail of the Large Transport. Due to the company policy; Large Transports will not increase their speed above 180 KTS till above 3;000 FT. The Airbus climb profiles increase the speed to 250 KTS immediately. I told the Heavy Transport to fly present heading so he would not catch the Large Transport. The error occurred when an aircraft departed Runway 18R on runway heading. Our RNAV SID's have the aircraft fly runway heading then intercept a heading to the GPS/RNAV fix. The Large Transport is not RNAV equipped and require an initial heading. Have all the aircraft in the fleet attempt to perform in a similar manner. Have MEM Tower not launch aircraft in trail with visual separation when a Large Transport is involved. Have MEM Tower not launch aircraft side-by-side with the same headings to intercept a fix. The Tower have aircraft on set headings diverging immediately off the runway; and have the Departure Controller put the aircraft on the RNAV SID.




Synopsis: M03 Controller described a developing conflict event with two departing aircraft; the first one's speed required to be at 180 KTS until 3;000 FT. The Controller recommended several proposed Tower actions that could prevent future occurrences.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fire Extinguishing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: NEF item for XXXX Baggage area trim coverings is outside the scope of the FAA NEF deferral program. When Baggage compartment trim coverings hang down it blocks fire particle detection sensors and blocks the fire suppressant exhaust nozzles for extinguishing. I have [observed] where the carpeting is hanging down; [and I] can see where the extinguishing nozzle should be; however it is now behind the carpet. Same thing happens to the particle sensor on the side bulkheads.Being that luggage is required to keep from interfering with fire protective features; loose and hanging interior baggage trim would also fall within the scope of the FAR. For fire safety; baggage trim/carpeting should be removed from the NEF deferral list.FAR 25.855 (f) There must be means to prevent cargo or baggage from interfering with the functioning of the fire protective features of the compartment.

Callback: The reporter stated the CE-680 aft cargo hold is temperature controlled and cycles up to about 100F; cools then reheats. This cycling process apparently causes the carpet lining to shrink and detach from the fire retardant foamlike lining. Loose carpet may then hang in front of fire detectors and fire suppressant ejector nozzles. An additional issue with the carpet shrinking is occasionally the black foamlike fire protection lining does not detach from the shrinking carpet and it too separates from the aircraft interior frame. When recorded in the maintenance log; maintenance personnel may improperly use NEF to clear the discrepancy.



Synopsis: A CE-680 Captain reported the application of NEF for Baggage Area Trim Coverings was incorrect because fire particle detector sensors and fire suppressant exhaust nozzles were blocked by hanging carpet.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PC-12
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Local; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This event occurred while approaching from the west for a landing. I had contacted Tower reporting my position as being north [of city] and requested landing with parking. I was told to report the water tower. I reported the water tower and was asked if I wanted XXR or XXL. I indicated my preference for XXR. I was instructed to look for and follow a Pilatus on final. I saw what I thought to be the Pilatus on a course and in a position to be the aircraft I was to follow and reported seeing that aircraft. I was instructed to follow the Pilatus. I set a course; a base leg that would allow me to be spaced behind that aircraft. Given my closeness to that aircraft I requested Runway XXL to allow better spacing. It was then my [passenger] alerted me to an aircraft; a Pilatus; approaching from the left. That aircraft passes below me. The Pilatus pilot was concerned to the point of wanting to speak with the Tower via phone after landing. I was also concerned that I had mistaken another aircraft for the called traffic. This happened in deep twilight conditions; dark to the point that visually identifying things was not easy. My plane is equipped with ADS-B in and out via a Stratus ESG transponder and a Stratus 2i receiver. Navigation maps and traffic is displayed on an iPad mini via Foreflight. No warning of conflicting traffic was noted.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 pilot reported an airborne conflict with a Pilatus due to misidentifying other traffic.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Oil Seals
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I left ZZZ enroute to ZZZ1. I was in my initial climb; only about 10 minutes into the flight; and saw the oil pressure started to fluctuate; I called approach and reported low oil pressure and I was going to land at ZZZ2. After I contacted them the oil pressure dropped to zero. I pulled the throttle back to idle and circled the field once; got to key position close and high to the airport. I did a full forward slip and landed without incident. After I was down I coasted onto the ramp via the taxiway and shut the engine down. There was no oil on the dipstick; I left ZZZ with 7 quarts.The Thursday before the flight; I assisted my partner in the airplane in changing the oil. We checked for leaks and took it for a test flight with no incident.The root cause was a failed seal between the oil filter adapter plate and the engine casing. It had nothing to do with the oil change; it was a seal replaced by our mechanic at an annual over a year ago.




Synopsis: C177 pilot reported a loss of engine oil pressure during climb resulting in a diversion to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, Us
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-10
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My Aircraft RV-10 was cleared for an IFR flight plan take off from the ZZZ tower for a runway 14 departure with a runway heading course. As I was climbing through approx. 200 feet AGL the tower called out for an immediate traffic alert with converging traffic from my left 10 o'clock position. I immediately looked in the direction but did not see an aircraft. Simultaneously my wife seated in the left front seat yelled out that there was an aircraft to our right 1 o'clock position high in a left turn descending path. Our two aircraft's were on an immediate converging path; I instinctively push the aircraft nose over to stop our climb; gain forward airspeed and started a left bank to avoid possible collision. At the same moment I heard the ZZZ tower give immediate course direction to the other aircraft to avoid a collision. I recall that the other aircraft was a low wing single engine aircraft; possibly white with other strip colors. Once we were cleared of conflict; I resumed runway heading and my climb to avoid two large buildings on the beach end of the runway heading. It was at that time I heard the tower controller advise the other aircraft that he was being reported for possible pilot deviation for not following the tower controller instructions while in the pattern and that he needed to contact the tower via landline once on the ground. This event left me shaken for a few moments as I had my entire family on board my aircraft.  The learning here is despite being in a controlled airspace; on a IFR flight plan; with a clearance for takeoff by the tower controller; it is still always first and foremost the PIC responsibility to be very vigilant of all other aircraft in the vicinity. Never assume you are 100% safe in a controlled airspace / towered environment.




Synopsis: Pilot reported taking evasive action on takeoff to avoid a midair collision with an aircraft not following controller's instructions.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BTV.Airport, VT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BTV
ATC / advisory: Tower BTV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Arriving at BTV we accepted a visual approach to runway 33.  Prior to beginning the approach we were aware of the high terrain surrounding BTV.  At traffic pattern altitude we turned a left base to runway 33; shortly after the turn we received a GPWS warning instructing us to climb; we immediately complied with the command which required a climb of about 300 feet.  It was starting to get dark but the weather and visibility were good; and we were able to maintain good visual contact with the airport and the terrain.  It is our opinion that we maintained adequate separation from the terrain at all times.  After resolving the GPWS command the aircraft was in an adequate position to continue the approach; we stabilized the aircraft on final and landed safely.




Synopsis: A flight crew accepted a visual approach to an airport where they were aware of the high terrain surrounding the airport. On base; they received a terrain warning commanding them to climb. They complied but were still in an adequate position to continue the approach. They stabilized the aircraft on final and landed safely.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am submitting this report as a result of being informed by [Company] representative that a flight; or flights; I operated were potentially in violation of CFR 121.555. I was unaware of this at the time I was scheduled and then operated the potentially violation flights. Although I understand it is the joint responsibility of the crew (Captain) and the Dispatcher to ensure the airport is OPSPECS legal before the operation of a flight; it is not the norm to check each and every leg in a regularly scheduled; [dispatch packet] produced and approved flight segment and pairing. First Officer and I operated without being aware that ZZZ was listed as an Alternate; not a Destination airport in OPSPECS for [Company] Boeing 767 aircraft. We were made aware of this via email. Captain and First Officer operated the following flights with Aircraft X; a B-767-300.  [We flew a] city pairings we do not normally operate; but to our knowledge were normal domestic gateways. This was a trip in the published [dispatch package] and had no reason to believe any discrepancies or legal issues were involved in operating this trip. Perhaps in the future we as a crew and certainly me as the Captain will query the dispatcher more often when operating unfamiliar city pairs for legal issues in addition to my normal communication with Dispatch.


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


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported landing at an airport not authorized per company Ops Specs.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: M98.TRACON, MN
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ANE
ATC / advisory: TRACON M98
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X called for clearance and release off of Runway 27 at ANE. There was a snow event in the area. There was trace icing reported at 4000 ft. I issued the clearance and release and instructed the aircraft to 'Enter controlled airspace heading 090' there was trace icing at 4000 ft. so I instructed the aircraft to maintain 3000 ft. There was an obstruction south of the ANE airport with an MVA of 3400 ft. I assumed that the aircraft would make the turn tight enough to stay north of the obstruction on the 090-degree heading. The aircraft turned wider than anticipated and entered the MVA for the obstruction. When I became aware of the situation I issued a climb to 4000 ft. I should not have assumed that the aircraft would have turned as expected and issued a heading north of the airport to avoid the obstruction or just issued 4000 ft. as an initial altitude.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported keeping an aircraft below the MVA due to icing conditions.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were doing a gear down ferry. I've never done one before; and finding the relevant information wasn't easy. I spoke with dispatch and he didn't know how to calculate the additional performance necessary with the gear extended. I found the relevant information in the [manual]; but it referenced 'modules' that were not there. I had to go to the QRH to verify that we could meet the climb cruise and landing performance. The one thing I couldn't find was the additional fuel burn; but dispatch said the manual said it was an 8 percent increase. I thought that was low; but got busy and failed to verify it. Turns out the manual says 80 percent increase in fuel burn.Approximately 1 hour prior to landing; we noticed the fuel burn was way off; but it still showed that we would land with 2;200lbs. As we got approximately 50 miles south of the border the landing fuel was down to 1;900; and decreasing. We made the decision to divert and landed with just over our emergency fuel. I spoke to dispatch and he said that they will soon have a gear MEL option and this will correct this issue. However; until that happens; I suggest someone that does this more often put together a flowchart with hyperlinks to help crews figure out this critical performance.


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


Synopsis: A Challenger 300 crew reported that due to incorrect fuel consumption information they had to divert during a gear down ferry flight.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Experienced engine power failure on takeoff.Notified the tower.Returned to land on runway 4 without incident.Was able to taxi to hanger.




Synopsis: During takeoff in a Piper PA-12 the engine failed and the pilot notified the tower; returned; and landed without incident.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: This was a personal flight under visual flight rules (VFR). An Apple device was configured as an electronic flight bag (EFB) and was used to provide required aviation charts and data for the flight. The EFB was mounted securely in a clamping-style mount facing the left seat; with its screen visible from both left and right seats. The EFB was in use continuously after starting the aircraft engines; and was running the ForeFlight EFB application. While parked in the 'runup' area; the flight plan for the planned flight was configured and confirmed to be active on the EFB. Shortly after takeoff; I noted that the device appeared to have 'crashed' without warning; and at that time appeared to be rebooting. Shortly afterwards; while in flight at 10;500 feet elevation I noted that the device now appeared to have possibly installed an update or similar; rather than merely rebooting. Several attempts were made in flight to resume use of the device as an EFB; but it was soon determined to have likely been reset to 'factory settings'; as it was displaying the Apple 'hello' screen that is displayed on new devices or devices which have been reset to factory settings. All attempts to log into the device (even to confirm whether it had been reset and thus all EFB applications and data wiped) failed due to a requirement for Internet service to do so. The device was then determined to be inoperable and unusable as an EFB; and was stowed for the remainder of the flight. It was later determined from Apple support call that an exchange employment email account was the source of the factory reset.




Synopsis: Pilot reported the Ipad Electronic Flight Bag became unusable shortly after takeoff.