elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Light Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D BFI; Class E S46
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46; Tower BFI
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working arrival east and BFI arrival combined with a good amount of BFI traffic inbound. I was getting BFI arrivals from all 4 corners into my airspace and trying to sequence while also trying to feed the SEA final. Aircraft X was vectored to final behind Aircraft Y. I did not see that Aircraft Y was an F-Category aircraft before I switched Aircraft X to BFI Tower. Upon realization that I needed 4.0 miles for wake turbulence; I tried to contact BFI Tower to see if they could slow Aircraft X but nobody answered. Aircraft Y started slowing and compression caused Aircraft X to get within 4 miles of the aircraft in front.[Sector] should have been split with the amount of BFI arrivals inbound. My guess is that; like always; staffing forced the situation to remain combined causing the loss. I also have no idea why BFI Tower let Aircraft X continue the approach after they saw that wake turbulence separation was going to be lost unless they asked Aircraft X if they could provide visual with the aircraft in front.




Synopsis: S46 TRACON Controller reported a loss of separation on final due to not realizing an aircraft involved was a Category F.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, 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
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft had 2 MEL's on it. Pack 1 was inoperative and the Ram Air dampers. On initial climb out; we received a Bleed 2 Overpressure. The QRH procedure was run and [it] did not reset the message. We continued the QRH procedure which led us to use crossbleed which didn't work. The procedure led up to [a landing] at the nearest suitable airport. Because Pack 1 was inoperative we had no pressurization as well since we lost pack 2 with the bleed overpress and crossbleeding didn't work. The aircraft had a history of Bleed 2 overpressure.


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


Synopsis: EMB-175 flight crew reported returning to departure airport after the sole remaining air conditioning/pressurization pack failed in flight.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
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 Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out; the EICAS indicated Fuel Disagree. We ran the checklist and determined that there was no fuel leak and the checklist concluded that the totalizer fuel was more accurate. After level-off and crossing first waypoint; we noticed the flight plan fuel and totalizer fuel differed by 9000 lbs while calculated fuel was much closer to flight plan. We contacted [Maintenance] and reported our findings. They were aware of the aircraft's extensive history of fuel issues and repairs. We agreed that a return to ZZZ would be the safest option. I contacted Dispatch and advised them to discuss the issue with [Maintenance] and that we were returning to ZZZ for a possible overweight landing or possible fuel dump. All concurred. We decided against dumping fuel since our greatest concern was a lack of true total fuel reading. We landed at an estimated weight of 503;000 lbs. Normal soft landing. Captain's authority used for overweight landing. On landing; the totalizer fuel showed 22;000 lbs more than the calculated fuel. After engine shutdown; the calculated fuel reset to match the totalizer fuel again. Sticking the fuel tanks at this point would have given all of us significant information. Without knowing the sequence of technical data and history of repairs and relationships to other components; all I could do is ignorantly speculate.




Synopsis: Flight Crew flying 777-200 encountered fuel quantity indication disagree.
Date: 201910
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While being vectored for final the oil pressure began to rise above 60%. 50-60% power was being used at the time. I monitored the oil pressure as it maintained between 60-65%. Then it began to climb past 70%; as we turned to final it reach 80-85%. At that point I was close enough to the airport to bring the power setting to close to idle. The oil pressure dropped in the green. I landed and went to the FBO. When I checked the oil; smoke began to come out and the oil color was solid black.




Synopsis: SR20 Flight Instructor reported an oil pressure anomaly on approach.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LYH.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D LYH
ATC / advisory: Tower LYH
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I just experienced a near-mid-air collision. I came back from my cross-country; it was getting dark; and there was a large group of aircraft attempting to landing at LYH; runway 4. Tower told another aircraft...to follow us in; we were number #2 to land at the time. The aircraft started to turn in front of us; thinking that #3 to land was us. Tower had us do an immediate 360; and started to chew out the other aircraft. Meanwhile we were doing the 360; and another aircraft was making a left turn to enter into the landing order. I notice them on TCAS and realized they were on a collision course. Being in a left turn; I don't think he could see me. TCAS also said he was at the same altitude. I couldn't go down since it was night and I didn't want to get any closer to the ground; and I wasn't sure where to go laterally because of all the confusion; so I climbed. I pass directly over top of him; at maybe two hundred feet or so. I was then queried by ATC if I had him in sight; which I said I did. I followed him in to land; but was shaken up enough to where I botched my first landing and had to do a go around; partially because of the strong crosswind. Second pattern lead to a smooth landing.




Synopsis: A private pilot in a C172 entered a busy traffic pattern and suffered two separate losses of separation requiring evasive maneuvering. Both events were harrowing but did not meet NMAC criteria.
Date: 201702
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was the final marshaller on [gate] for arrival flight. I stopped him on the correct line and he set his brakes. I then watched the nose gear tires chocked and gave the tires chocked signal to the pilot. The pilot returned the tires chocked signal. Next thing I see is that the aircraft is rolling back and because of the icy and sandy conditions on the ramp that the chocks are not holding. [Colleague] was able to chock one of the mains on a dry spot after the aircraft had rolled back 3 feet. I was never given the brakes released signal. We towed the aircraft back to the correct parking line.




Synopsis: Aircraft marshaller reported an aircraft began to slide after being chocked at the gate in icy conditions.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I flew; as pilot in command with clearance under an IFR flight plan. One non-pilot passenger was on board.While in contact with [the arrival airport] Tower; I reported final approach approximately 4 miles from the runway. I was then cleared to land. The weather was clear and sunny with winds out of the north at 6 knots. I performed the GUMPPS checklist and continued my descent. On short final; I performed the GUMPPS checklist a second time and confirmed; among the other checklist items; that the gear deployment switch was in the proper position. I do not recall whether the single green light gear down indicator was illuminated. I glanced at the mirror mounted on the left wing to confirm that the nose gear was down. It appeared down.The landing was comfortably set up and standard until touchdown from flare. Things felt normal during touchdown; however; I realized something was wrong as the plane sank and the props hit the pavement. Smoke filled the cockpit. I maneuvered the plane to a complete stop then quickly opened the front door and unbuckled the belt so my passenger could exit the plane. I followed shortly thereafter as help arrived.[A local man] arrived in a pickup truck where the plane came to rest on the runway to provide assistance. He indicated that he had watched the landing and 'everything seemed normal with landing gear down; center of runway; normal sounds; etc.' The plane sustained obvious damage to the props and underside. It was later removed from the runway and transported to a nearby location.

Callback: The reporter indicated that the aircraft was a rental and that the cause of the collapse is unknown.



Synopsis: The pilot of a Beech Baron reported a landing gear collapse during touchdown.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were given the SENIC departure DAG transition; but soon after takeoff we were being vectored around the airspace.  The occurrence happened with the second SoCal frequency.  I believe it was with 125.35.  The initial heading was 180; then to a heading of 210 with a climb to 4-5;000 FT.  A heading of 090 and a climb was given and was told to expedite the climb.  We climbed out as fast as the plane would take us; the only problem was it was much warmer about 25 C so our performance was not as stellar as it usually is.  Next we were told to climb 12;000 and expedite through 10;000 FT.  From what I can gather a voice came on; not the same voice of the Controller; maybe a Supervisor saying in a very snippy or rude voice; 'Aircraft X am I missing something?  Is something going on?  Why are you not climbing like you normally do?'  I came on and stated that we were climbing at 185 knots with a climb rate of 1;700 FPM; and we are doing the best we can.  I also looked down to make sure we were in the climb detent.  We had no separation issues; we did all that we were asked to do; but not up to the Controller's expectations.  I feel that the Controller could have handled this in a way that could have been more professional; instead of snipping at us on the radio.  We were quite taken off guard by the attitude of the Controller toward us.  I understand it was busy and there was a lot of traffic around in a highly stressful situation.  This could have been handled better.[The] plane [was not] not performing as the Controller thought it should.  We put it in the climb detent consistent for passenger comfort and held the airspeed under 200 KTS.  On any other day we would have had a very good climb rate; but for the current conditions we did not.Maybe we were to slow in initiating the climb; but we had to take in account passenger comfort.  I don't want to throw it right into the climb detent in speed mode at 200 KTS; which would be very uncomfortable for the passengers.  Having better situational awareness of how the plane was performing; and it was warmer than usual at that altitude.




Synopsis: Pilot describes the climbout of his aircraft as being slow due to outside temperature; when a Controller asks him about his climbing capabilities that are lacking.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SBGR.Airport, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center SBBS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We departed SBGR on Runway 9L at 682;000 lbs Flaps 1 with a 3 knot headwind. Filed and assigned the BGC2A RNAV departure. SID requires a left turn after 4000 feet; but the terrain is 4718 feet with an obstacle on the mountain top just 5 NM north; along the route of flight. The SID requires a climb of 5% at 1250 fpm at 250 knots. This climb gradient is not possible with a flap retraction at this weight. Also minimum maneuver speed was 248 knots. We HAD to keep Flaps 1 and Minimum Maneuver flaps 1 to ensure terrain clearance with BOTH engines at full climb thrust. We climbed at Flaps 1 at minimum maneuver speed until 1000 feet above the obstacle at 4718 ft. Had ANY problem occurred during this critical phase or had ANY other crew retracted the flaps and/or accelerated; the terrain clearance would be impossible. This SID IS NOT a good idea without some weight adjustments or note to keep flaps 1 until above 5700 feet etc; an engine failure would have been critical and required an IMMEDIATE turn to the south. I suggest a note and/or weight limit be added to this SID to avoid a serious problem. Normal climb procedures with BOTH engines at climb thrust is NOT sufficient to avoid the terrain 5 miles north. Heavy weight and quick turn north not recommended to fly this SID. Put a note in briefing pages to keep flaps 1 and climb first above 5000 feet.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported that the BGC2A RNAV departure from SGBR may not provide sufficient terrain clearance if the aircraft is heavy and the turn is initiated at 4000 feet.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Workload
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Acute burning smell and smoke/haze in cockpit; but none noted by flight attendants in the cabin; while on approach. Smelled electrical; but possibly plastic; fabric; or even burned engine or hydraulic oil in aerosol form. No evident source. Completed immediate action items and declared emergency; briefed flight attendants and Dispatch; cabin announcement; and landed normally. During final approach and landing; fumes and smoke dissipated to residual only. Neither Tower nor fire crews noted abnormalities or source; nor we taxied to the gate and deplaned normally. Fire crews inspected the inside of the aircraft; with no evident results.




Synopsis: A B757 First Officer reported an acute burning smell with smoke or haze in the cockpit starting at about 11;000 feet descending. The odor; possibly electric; plastic; fabric or petroleum; dissipated on short final.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am just getting back into flying after retiring from the airlines and I see a lot of new technology and toys; but one thing comes screaming back to me in my instructing and Charter flying. That is: even with the new technological advances we all need to teach 'fly the aircraft' first and foremost and double check each other on the ATC clearance; charts; and procedures.Two examples are: on departure we were rushed with delays and passengers showing up early; so I did not get a chance to review the departure with the First Officer and the departure stated runway heading for vectors; no turns [until] 6;500 feet. At 6;500 [FT] I started a turn with the First Officer's concurrence for the assigned departure fix and was greeted by '[Callsign]; what is your heading?'  There was no traffic conflict; but we were embarrassed and were told; 'No problem; cleared on course. But in the future...' You can hopefully learn from my mistake.Second mistake was on descent into ZZZZ. We were given a change in the arrival with a crossing of 15;000 [feet] at ZZZZZ; no speed assigned.  The First Officer told me it was 19 miles to ZZZZZ when actually it was only 14 miles. I had set in 15;000 [feet] / 250 at ZZZZZ in the VNAV but that failed to come up and my reliance on it and not double checking each other on the tiny new IPAD screens put me 300 to 500 FT high. We did alert ATC and were told to do our best which; embarrassingly again; we did do. With all the new toys I have learned again: not to rely solely on them and always double check each other. Hopefully my errors in the basics will help others.




Synopsis: LR35 Captain attributed a track deviation and missed crossing restriction to a failure to follow the basic tenets of 'flying the aircraft first' and 'double checking each other.'