elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was a normal day; early van to to the airport; accepted plane; boarded; departed a few minutes early and proceeded to de-ice pad to have heavy coat of frost removed. Due to the cold I was in no particular hurry to get in the air; as I recall we were almost done with de-ice before the oil temps were within limits for flight. Just a note; I always like the plane to warm up adequate before flights on these cold mornings (-14c). Taxied out; de-ice equipment check; and took the runway and commenced a takeoff once clearance was received from tower. Somewhere around halfway through gear retraction the right engine began surging very radically; upon closer examination so was the prop. We as a crew determined the most likely cause was a beta lockout failure. We complied with the company memory procedures and when the condition levers were reduced below 1200 the surging ceased. The tower was notified of our intent to return and land; we entered the traffic pattern in a left downwind. The F/A was briefed; the passengers were briefed; ops were notified and we landed as I recall about 9 minutes after liftoff; taxi back to the gate was uneventful where deplaning proceeded without delay. There was a return to field but an emergency was not declared.




Synopsis: A DHC-8 flight crew encountered a surging right engine shortly after landing gear retraction; reduced the RPM until the surging ceased per their Beta lockout procedure and returned to their departure airport.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working DR1 and accepted a handoff from DR2 on a tag that read Aircraft X. The pilot asked for a Bravo clearance and climb which I issued. When I saw that the aircraft did not appear to be climbing; I began making inquiries. The altitude indicated 061 and an approximate 240 heading; not the climb to 085 on a 170 heading I'd issued. I attempted to turn further right to a 150 with no visible change. I asked for his altitude; thirty degree turns and finally to IDENT since I'd seen no change. In between some of this questioning; BJC called to say they tagged up a VFR as a Bravo violator 'BVIO' and wanted me to track him and have him call. When I asked Aircraft X to IDENT; I observed the BVIO IDENT. I asked for position and correlated it to that spot; 20 miles south of the AC DR2 identified as Aircraft X.After watching the replay we discovered that a code [XXYY] departed GXY. When DR2 got the call from Aircraft X and typed it in; the generated code was also [XXYY]. The system tagged the aircraft off GXY instead of the actual Aircraft X who departed BDU almost 35 miles apart. When DR2 called the position correctly; the pilot did not catch that it was incorrect. The real Aircraft X flew through BJC's airspace; through their traffic pattern; and I didn't make the connection until I saw the BVIO with an IDENT. I had to watch the replay to figure out how all of that happened.There were two aircraft squawking [XXYY] and the system didn't show any indication of it. I'd like to see that the system either not allow that to happen or at least have some sort of notification that it's happened.




Synopsis: Denver TRACON Controller reported the ATC Computer allowed two aircraft to be tagged up on the same code; which led to confusion and airspace violations.
Date: 202101
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Instructor; Inspector; Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Avionics
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Inspector; Lead Technician; Trainee
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I returned to work after a 3 month absence. I am still qualified on the module. I was assigned as the trainer to Mechanic Y. I was training him on the stator case assembly. I demonstrated how to tighten each vane segment foot bolts. The procedure that I was taught; and which had been in use as long as I can remember; was to slide the case and vane assembly; so that approximately one third of it overhung the table surface. Then the bolts were tightened from below with a ratchet with a socket and long extension; repositioning the case and vane assembly as necessary until all bolts were tightened. At the time of the incident; I was not in the work area; having gone to the restroom.Support the case with a hoist and sling before tightening the bolts. This should be added to the job card.


Second narrative: One week after return from 3 months off and being the first time working on this unit as a trainee.On Graveyard shift I was working on the module and order # XXXX. I was tightening the bolts of the vanes. The bolts are tighten from the bottom while the case sits on the table. To access the bolts part of the case is moved slightly beyond the edge of the table. I was sitting in a chair with rollers while I was tightening the bolts. The chair moved; the wrench and its extension did come off the bolt head causing the case to slide off the table and fall to the floor approximately 30 inches.There was no visible damage to the case because it fell directly on my arm and that cushioned the fall. Inspection will be called to inspect the unit.I would add to the job card to support the case with a hoist before tightening the bolts. Or developing a fixture that would allow to reach the bolts from the bottom without having to move part of the case off the edge of the table.


Synopsis: Maintenance Instructor and Trainee reported a training mistake during a training session and both cited being off for an extended time contributed to the event.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Second aircraft: B767-200
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Local 1 at JFK working ILS to Runway 31R and visuals to Runway 31L. An A320 was told to line up and wait on Runway 31L with a B767-200 on 5 mile final. The A320 was cleared for takeoff and notified of traffic on a 3 mile final. The A320 did not commence his takeoff roll. With the B767 on about 1.5 mile final I told the A320 he needed to go. The A320 slowly rolled down runway at less then taxi speed. I sensed he had a problem and told the A320 to exit the runway at Taxiway Y to allow the B767 to land. At this point the A320 advised he was rolling.  The B767 was too close for this to work so I told the A320 to cancel takeoff and exit now at the next turn; which was Runway 4L. I tried to send the B767 around; but he had keyed the frequency asking about what he should do causing me not to be able to speak to the B767. Finally the B767 unkeyed and I sent him around as the A320 exited the runway. If an aircraft is cleared for takeoff but is not ready; they should notify ATC as soon as possible to prevent this type of situation.




Synopsis: JFK Controller described a go-around event when traffic cleared for takeoff delayed longer than expected and separation collapsed; the reporter noted the departing aircraft should have informed ATC of any expected delays.
Date: 202004
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft X Battery was replaced due to the log book write up; low voltage; APU would not start with low battery voltage.Storage procedure required battery disconnect not to drain down. Believe this would have occurred sometime.These aircraft were parked due to unusual circumstances. Procedures were changing often. I hope a job card is developed to eliminate any future confusion.




Synopsis: Technician reported an aircraft battery had to be replaced due to incorrect storage procedure.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSU.ARTCC, PR
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZSU
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I instructed the handoff assist to amend the flight plan for Air Carrier X. Seeing ALURI as the next fix; and never hearing of that fix; I assumed that it was well in ZNY's airspace. Apparently ALERI is before LUCTI in ZMA's airspace; causing the flight plan to back track; resulting in an error within Oceanic Procedures (ATOPS). I should have gone to the end of the airway to tie in the route of flight at the correct fix instead of assuming or called ZMA to confirm. FDIO; ERAM; ERID; AND/OR ATOPS (FLIGH PLAN PROCESSING SOFTWARES) should provide notification alerting the controller that the route entered was in error is back tracking on itself.




Synopsis: ZSU ARTCC Controller reported entering an improper routing in the ERAM for an aircraft.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Altitude Alert
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing TEB on the RUUDY departure; the Captain was the non flying pilot in the right seat and I was the SIC/flying pilot; but sitting in the left seat. The Captain deplaned the passengers; handled the luggage and paid the applicable fees then returned to the plane while I received the PDC and set up the FMS for departure. The RUUDY SID has a final altitude of 2;000 (or as assigned) with an intermediate stop at 1;500 until crossing WENTZ. The Captain set 2;000 in the altitude preselect which should have been 1;500. He then briefed the clearance. As the flying pilot I considered the noise abatement for the Teterboro area and intended to climb as expeditiously as possible to the initial altitude. We discussed 1;500 at WENTZ then the climb to 2;000 over TASCA however I didn't catch that the Captain had set 2;000 in the altitude preselect. The chain of events was: 1. the incorrect setting of the altitude preselect; 2. preoccupation with noise abatement; 3. I followed the flight director to the preselected altitude. I should have been able to break the error chain simply by noting the incorrect setting of the initial altitude rather than trusting what was set to be correct.




Synopsis: A Gulfstream flight crew departing TEB on the RUUDY RNAV SID failed to cross WENTZ at 1;500 MSL as required. A contributing factor was setting the final SID altitude; 2;000 MSL; in the altitude alert window rather than the prior hard 1;500.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Second reporter function: Instructor; Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Cessna was doing pattern work and Airport Maintenance was doing work throughout the airport. Ground Control coordinated that Airport Maintenance wanted to drive Runway 14L and hold short of Runway 18. I approved and changed my Cessna to Runway 14R and cleared him for the option. The Cessna asked if he could cross midfield I replied negative extend your base Runway 14R; cleared for the option. Relinquished Runway 14L to Ground Control. Then Ground stated that the Maintenance vehicle now wanted Runway 14R. I advised him we switched the Cessna to the right because of the request and to hold short of Runway 14R; Ground acknowledged. I believe Ground was contacted by two airport vehicles with requests at the same time and because the call signs are so similar; and on frequency sound similar; one took the others permission to proceed as requested. As the aircraft was flaring over the approach end of Runway 14R the CIC/Supervisor yelled out is he on the runway; vehicle on the runway. My Trainer and I were looking at the airplane and the vehicle was at the approach end of the runway but not on the runway. The confusion involved two similar sounding call signs for trucks both in the area and when ground replied. I would make sure that all vehicles that have access to the airport don't have similar sounding call signs. I also recommend better radios.


Second narrative: Ground Control (GC) was having issues with two vehicles with similar sounding call signs. Ground instructed him to proceed as requested hold short of all runway's; but both vehicles started moving. Noticed the vehicle by the approach end of Runway 14R close but not on the runway and still moving. CIC noticed this first and drew it to the attention of me at Local Control. I told the Trainee I was training to send the Cessna around; the aircraft was less than a quarter mile final and approximately 100 FT AGL. He went around; continued to do pattern work while CIC and Ground worked with the vehicles to straighten the problem out. Rename one of the vehicles so the call signs aren't so similar.


Synopsis: Tower Controller described a runway incursion event when several airport vehicles were requesting runway clearances all with similar call signs.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Dual pack fail at FL240.  Returned to ZZZ.  Landed overweight.  Entered malfunction and overweight landing in maintenance log book.Aircraft was dispatched per the MEL with an inop right pack.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a dual Pack failure in cruise and returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On crosswind for Runway 9; I saw the other aircraft departing Runway 23. I had heard no radio traffic; so I called on CTAF to see if he had his radio on; no response. I then flew downwind; base and final but could not see the other aircraft; and there was no radio traffic on 122.8. Just as I was about to touch down; the other aircraft crossed the intersection of Runway's 5-23 and 9-27; about 1;000 FT in front of me as he landed on Runway 23. We were both landing simultaneously on different runways that intersected. After shutting down; I walked to the other pilot's hangar and asked him several questions: 'Do you have a radio in your plane?' 'Yes.' 'Do you keep it turned on?' 'No' 'Why not? We just about collided out there.' 'I can't hear it because of my hearing aid.' 'Why don't you get a headset?' 'I have one. It doesn't help.' 'Did you realize we were both landing and almost hit?' 'Oh; were you landing?' This pilot has had multiple near-misses at our field and multiple accidents. Upon discussing this issue with the airport manager immediately after; he informed me that [he] had a close call with another pilot in the past 2 weeks. This pilot apparently recently was flying without a medical; but I understand he has gotten it back. I do not understand how a pilot who is clearly dangerous; who has already exhibited unsafe actions and has had multiple incidents (including taxing in front of a King Air on short final about a year ago; which I previously reported) can be allowed to continue to fly; even under 'light sport'. Do we need to wait for someone to be killed by his actions before something is done? This is a serious matter of public safety. One issue is the pilot himself; and as I see it his inability to operate safely. The second is his use of equipment (or lack of use). At a minimum; he should be using the radio equipment in his aircraft so others can know his position and avoid him. As it is; if I know he is out flying; I do not pull my plane out.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reports a conflict with an LSA pilot landing on an intersecting runway. The LSA pilot does not use his radio due to incompatibility with his hearing aids. Previous conflicts are alleged.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
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: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were at cruise at FL260 when we heard a loud pop noise and the Captain's side front windshield outer panel shattered. We immediately checked to ensure pressure was stable (which it was); and decided to descend in case the other panes shattered as well. I (pilot flying) initiated a descent; the Captain (pilot monitoring) grabbed the QRH; and I advised ATC that our windshield shattered and we were in a descent to 10. The Controller cleared us down and asked if we wanted to declare an emergency; we didn't at that time but did a short time later with the same controller. A broken windshield; besides being startling with no obvious cause; creates at least two specific risks. One - of it worsening to the point that pressure is lost and/or breaks apart into the cockpit; and two - the visibility restrictions caused by a spider webbed window. We started descending prior to receiving clearance in order to minimize the first risk and notified the controller of our actions within a few hundred feet (at the first opportunity) to get an additional set of eyes to compensate for the second; and of course to keep the controller in the loop.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reports a shattered Captain's side front windshield at FL260 and starts descending. ATC is advised and an emergency is declared before diverting to a suitable airport.