elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: It was the 1st day that fusion multiple sensor radar was put in use. The perception of speed is skewed with constant updates as opposed to 8 second updates. Aircraft X was on a base leg to Runway 28L indicating 230 KTS. Reported the field in sight and was cleared for the visual approach. Aircraft Y was on vectors for the straight in indicating 210 KTS. Aircraft X slowed to 140 KTS once established on the final. By the time I noticed the overtake it was a little too late. I slowed Aircraft Y and turned him out; but still lost separation. This was my 1st session working final in fusion mode on the 1st day that fusion was activated. I was having a hard time with the perception of speed and Aircraft X's speed reduction was sudden and drastic compared to the normal operations with Aircraft X's type aircraft.In my belief fusion radar is not a reliable resource for working final control. The targets jump and in my opinion don't always give an accurate portrayal of the aircraft's position while the aircraft is in a turn. I recommend that single site radar should be allowed to be used for working final control.

Callback: In discussion with reporter; he stated that they do get a speed indication in the data block; but this is not updated as quick as the target moves while using Fusion Radar. On final now they are allowed to use one site radar to separate traffic.



Synopsis: TRACON Controller reports of operational error due to aircraft slowing more than he thought on final; causing the Controller to re-sequence the following aircraft.  Controller also attributes the loss of separation due to the use of Fusion Radar; which was his first time actually using it.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Propeller Assembly
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During push back; first flight of the day; the tug driver asked us to set brakes. As they were disconnecting; the #2 engine torque uncontrollably surged in a very quick manner. By the time I recognized what was going on and immediately moved my hand to the condition lever to shut off the engine; I believe that the #2 torque reached a value of approximately 120% as it was shut down. The #2 T-handle was also pulled. We got onto the ops frequency to request a tow-in back to the gate. As the ground crew was hooking up the tow bar to us again; the #1 engine began to surge upward rapidly. Since it just happened to #2; I was watching the engine gauges very closely as it happened and was able to catch this one early. I shut down the #1 engine as quickly as I could and I believe that the torque may have reached about 60% or so; although it happened so fast; I'm not sure how valid the values that I thought I saw were. The #1 T-handle was pulled and we were towed back into the gate running on battery power. The aircraft was deplaned and the discrepancy recorded in the maintenance logbook. It was still night; IMC at the time; with light snow falling; temps around 10F and we had approximately 20' of snow the day/night prior. No snow was observed in the intakes during preflight.

Callback: The Captain states that the DHC8 engines are normally started in feather and stay that way until cleared to taxi. The Captain believes that the high torque is the result of a fuel control malfunction that is dumping fuel into the engine with the propeller in feather. Forty percent is the normal torque limit with the propeller feathered.



Synopsis: DHC8-200 Captain reports starting both engines in the gate on a very cold morning then being pushed back. As the ground crew disconnects; the number two engine torque surges uncontrollably above 120% and the engine is shut down. The number one engine then begins surging and is shut down before the torque reaches 60%.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D LGB
ATC / advisory: Ground LGB; Tower LGB
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On approach and landing to Runway 25L the aircraft approach path penetrates directly behind a parked [Airbus widebody] at a 90 degree angle. On this occasion (and one previously in a C152) the [Airbus] had powered up its engines to finish its last few feet of taxi into its parking spot underneath the ATC Tower. The high powered jet blast caused the landing aircraft to temporarily go out of control and be blown off course (off the centerline of the runway.) Although control was regained in both situations; there is potential for a serious accident--especially if an inexperienced or student pilot is at the controls (as is very likely for Runway 25L since most student pilots use this runway when at LGB.) I reported the event to the Ground Controller.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported momentary loss of control on approach and landing to LGB Runway 25L when he encountered jet blast from a widebody Airbus on the ground.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Icing; 5
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 E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Intake Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While waiting to get a Special VFR (Visual Flight Rules) approach the engine began losing power; so ATC was advised. Upon landing safely at the airport a Mechanic inspected the engine and discovered that the crossover tube to the air intake had severed causing the engine to suck too much air and not enough fuel.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported that a leak in the engine air intake resulted in a loss of power during approach.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Evacuated; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were inbound for landing at our destination. The [cabin] heater; which was working poorly and had a poor smell the entire flight; had completely stopped working about 10 miles from the runway. I shut it off and closed the vents to try and keep as much warmth in inside as possible. On the taxi in I decided to test the heater one more time before reaching the ramp.  It still didn't seem to work. As I reached the parking spot I shut the engines down and my co-pilot said; 'It's smoking; the heater is smoking.' I [then] saw smoke coming out of the defrost vents.I immediately climbed back towards the door and opened it for the passengers and told them to get off the plane. I pointed to a sign in the distance for them to go to.  The Ops agents called the fire trucks [but] there didn't seem to be flames anywhere visible. If I were to do this all over again I would probably not have tested the heater one more time.  I should have just written it up as soon as we were got to the gate.




Synopsis: The flight crew of a CE-402 shut down the cabin heater enroute due to smoke and poor heating.  After landing the Captain opted to test it while taxiing to the gate.  Shortly after the First Officer noted it was smoking.  They evacuated the passengers and a ground agent called for CFR. The Captain opined afterward that; given similar circumstances; would be unlikely to perform a test subsequent to having turned it off for cause.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Trainee
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: With the ARTS IIIE aircraft departing ADS will automatically display to Dallas South; AR7; AR6; Dallas East; Feeder East 1 and Feeder East 2. These aircraft also auto handoff to DR1. Since we implemented STARS this feature has worked sometimes and sometimes not. Now it does not work at all. The auto displays are required in the D10 7110.65 for prearranged coordination climbs in designated areas. Without this function people are still climbing but do not realize; or are forgetting that these aircraft are not properly displayed to the appropriate positions; and thus the Controller should not be using prearranged coordination areas. Additionally since they are not displayed to Dallas South who owns the airspace; when the aircraft are handed off to DR1 or ZFW they go to a limited data block and Dallas South could easily run into them. The aircraft are also not handing off to DR1 and sometimes go directly to auto-handoff to ZFW. In that instance; people switch you the aircraft; but since you did not get the auto handoff; the aircraft is not even displayed on your screen. You literally have to hunt for it. This is a very serious safety issue that needs to be immediately corrected. This happened at least three times today. This is a serious safety issue. Immediately correct it or turn off STARS until these issues are corrected. We have been working with this for some time. Someone is going to get hurt!




Synopsis: D10 Controller expressed concern regarding the STARS equipment; providing examples of how the STARS functionalities can lead to an unsafe condition.
Date: 201405
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our flight had leveled at 29;000 feet awaiting further climb. After receiving ATC clearance 'climb FL350' I set 35;000 feet in the altitude preselector and verified it with the First Officer. I then selected vertical speed mode and spun the vertical speed wheel to begin the climb. A moment later I felt the aircraft increasing in a descent and immediately spun the vertical speed wheel to stop the descent and indicate a climb. After my input ATC also noticed the mistake and told us he was showing us in a descent. It took the aircraft a few more hundred feet to transition from the descent to a climb. ATC again verified the clearance of 'climb to FL350' which we again acknowledged. From there we climbed the 35;000 feet without further incident. Every input on the Flight Guidance Control Panel should be verified on the Primary Flight Display. Also; using flight level change mode will always cause the aircraft to head in the correct direction towards the altitude set in the preselector.




Synopsis: EMB-170 Captain reports being cleared to FL350 from FL290; setting the new altitude in the FGCP; selecting vertical speed and spinning the vertical speed wheel; but in the wrong direction; resulting in a descent.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing ZZZ we taxied to Runway XX. We had completed all checklists as well triangles for the runway change they requested and was about to takeoff. ZZZ radio issued us a clearance with a void time of 4 mins past the hour. ATC then said; your cleared to depart 'direct ZZZZZ'. We placed ZZZZZ in L1; confirmed it; executed and departed. As soon as we lifted off the flying pilot (my FO) was still VMC and said this doesn't look right and took immediate correction away from the mountains back to the left. I clarified with Center that what they wanted was the ZZZZZ1 departure via the ZZZZZ transition and not direct ZZZZZ.  Center agreed and we corrected back on course. We both had VSD up and had no terrain alerts or warnings on the VSD.Although it did not initially feel rushed looking back; we were at the end of the runway ready to go with many checklists and changes happening in a short period of time that seemed to be going quickly and smoothly.  I think this gave us a sense of being on a roll and feeling caught up. If we had not been so close to departing; I may have stopped to look at my chart which would have caught my attention and prompted me to speak up before executing this issuance in the box.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported a track heading deviation during takeoff resulting in a CFTT.  The Captain stated the First Officer noticed the error and immediately corrected back on course away from the mountains.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was working the evening arrival rush on the northwest gate going into ZZZ. Weather had shut done the south west gate and was in the middle of [the] sector that I was working. We pre-planned the pending arrival of 2 gates of traffic and was advised to run 2 routes normal to accommodate the demand for the gate. As soon as we had both routes all lined up on either side of the weather ZZZ Approach stopped taking hand-offs. We had to call them multiple times before the picked up the line and said they were being overfed and that we had to start spinning aircraft. This was not part of the pre-plan from a few minutes earlier and my D-side and myself tried to see if we could work something out less drastic. They would not work with us saying they were too busy with complete un-regard to the level off business they were about to give us. We scrambled to come up with a plan that kept airplanes out of weather and away from other traffic. As soon as we got into something that was manageable Approach said run them in again 2 routes normal. We started trying to get planes back in line on the two sides of the weather and Approach after taken another few airplanes stopped taking hand-offs and answer the shout line giving us no other choice but to start this whole process over again. This time around I had Aircraft X that did not descend to 170 promptly when asked and an Aircraft Y that did not turn like I thought he should have. They had about 3 hits inside the bubble before they got back on track. Someone has to hold ZZZ Approach accountable for making reactions that cause risk to the NAS (National Airspace System). The have 6 runways and hardly ever use 3 of them. We run tighter finals into mountainous airports and the Tower is able to get departures of the same runway in between. It seems that on our end of the week the common denominator more often than not is one of the supervisors at TRACON. On more than one occasion; controllers have had to apologize for his incompetence. There has to be a better transition from being overfed. More miles in trail; moving to a single feed or just communicating what they need. We are supposed to be a team.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported an unsafe situation with Tracon not taking hand-offs.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At an intermediate cruise altitude one of the passengers came to the flight deck and advised us that 'the walls are too hot to touch.' I asked my First Officer what the cabin temp setting was. He told me that it was in the manual position and the temperature selected to full cold. I asked him to don his oxygen mask and I transferred the autopilot to him. I left the flight deck to inspect the situation. I touched the walls where the ducting is located and found it too hot to leave my hand. I felt along the length of both walls and the result was the same. I advised the passengers that I was going to call Maintenance and that we were most likely to divert. I returned to the flight deck and called Dispatch and had them transfer me to Maintenance. I spoke with Maintenance and we agreed to divert to a nearby airport. I returned to pilot flying duties and advised my First Officer that we are diverting to kind. I announced our intention to ATC to which they asked for the reason. I advised that we were diverting to kind as a precaution due to uncontrolled cabin temperature. Upon descent and power reduction the passenger informed me that the temperature was turning colder. Landing was uneventful.




Synopsis: A BE-400XP passenger informed the crew about an extremely hot cabin sidewall and after verifying the report the Captain diverted to a nearby airport for a precautionary landing.