elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Supercharger (Turbocharger is 81.1)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When I was en route I felt a yawing motion of the plane and noticed that the right engine manifold pressure had dropped to approximately 20 inches. I looked out at the right engine and notice that the wasn't the typical red glowing pipe that you normally see so I figured the turbo had failed and did not consider it to be a big issue. My plan was to continue to the filed destination; call Dispatch and Maintenance; and then go from there. Shortly after noticing the turbo failed; the engine began to constantly back fire; I saw oil slowly leaking out of the side access door; and I noticed the fuel flow had dropped to below 10 GPH. At this time I followed the engine failure/shut down list and shut the engine down to prevent any further damage to the engine. I contacted ATC let them know of my situation and ended up landing single engine safely at a nearby airport.




Synopsis: A PA-31 turbo failed which caused an oil leak. The pilot shut the engine down and diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arriving from the NNW we announced we were 10 miles away from the airport. At about 2 miles from the airport we hear an aircraft announce there were 'jumpers away at 14;000 feet'. We maneuvered to enter a crosswind at 2;000 feet as to not conflict with them. As we were turning downwind the skydive airplane announced he was entering downwind. I asked his position and altitude and he said midfield at 6;000 feet. I didn't have him in sight and asked his intentions as it seemed we were approximately in the same position only lower. He responded and shortly afterwards I saw him in an extremely steep dive in front of us. He broke off his approach coming close enough to us that our TCAS (Traffic Collision Alerting System) RA (Resolution Advisory) alert signaled us. We had a brief exchange of words over the radio and we landed safely. Emphasis on collision avoidance and proper traffic pattern procedures should be practiced by the skydive airplane's pilot. He is going to kill someone if he continues to fly in a reckless manner.




Synopsis: C525 pilot reported an aircraft entered the VFR traffic pattern from too high of an altitude was in conflict with them on downwind.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Fatigue
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: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: The area was short staffed. We only had 8 controllers to start the shift. The Supervisor left on leave so a CIC was stood up. As the evening went on every time I plugged in I would almost reach two hours on position. Other controllers did reach two hours or more. At one point sectors 20; 63; and 78 were combined up to give relief to a controller that was there on overtime and had been on position for more than 2 hours [without] a break. This resulted in the combined sector being red for well over an hour straight. The Controller working the sector was given a trainee that was not certified on one of the sectors that were combined as a D-side. The controller working the red sectors ended up on position for over two hours by himself. On top of that we were given reroutes for aircraft from TMU; but the points [where] the reroute took place were well inside ZFW center and there was no reason for us to give the change especially with the current workload. The new policy in the building during the day is that controllers are not allowed to work red sectors so we continually split sectors and we are told that TMU is doing something. Now we have controllers who are not used to working this volume of traffic and I feel as if TMU did nothing because they were still asking us to do more and they were going home anyway. This was probably one of the worst situations I have seen of not caring about the controllers from management. It repeatedly happens on the mid. Management is always acting concerned about volume when upper management is there during the day but not on the mid when they are at home.The fix to this would be to staff to 10 on a swing as this is not the first time that we had to hold people over because we are short staffed on the swing.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller reported of short staffing and management's policy related to working traffic when the sector is in the red (Monitor Alert Parameter).  Controller would like to see shift staffing up to what the requested numbers are.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IWA.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D IWA
ATC / advisory: Tower IWA
Second aircraft: Aerobatic
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As we lined up to depart Runway 12C we were preceded by three aerobatic aircraft. All three requested a turn to 090 on departure. As the third went airborne we were immediately cleared for takeoff. Both the Captain and I thought this was a dangerous idea to follow the same departure path as the aerobatic planes and requested Tower work out a turn to the right. They did so and we went 10 degrees right of the runway on our climb all the way past 10;000 FT. You could see the aircraft follow our climb to our left. Had we taken off the same departure would have been granted at minimal spacing and into the aerobatic box just off the field. Move aerobatic planes and their area far away from where scheduled airlines fly. I cannot understand why they are allowed to keep their aerobatic box directly on our departure path as well as on our HUUTY arrival. After the TYLIK Intersection we are forced into their aerobatic box because both they and the FAA refuse to move it farther south.




Synopsis: An air carrier that departed IWA following three aerobatic aircraft had to request a departure vector in order to maintain a comfortable separation from the aircraft maneuvering in the departure corridor.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Second flight after 100 hour inspection and throttle cable replacement. Normal departure and descent on flight from to ZZZ. Throttle was reduced to 1;500 RPM and set flaps 10 on downwind pattern for Runway XX winds 250 at 9. Power was reduced again to idle and set flaps full turning final. Noted still too high and fast on short final. Attempted to slip and confirmed throttle was at idle. Did not notice at that time RPM was still at just under 1;500 RPM. Continued with attempted descent to 100 feet prior to mid field on this 5;000 feet runway. Elected to attempt a go-around and advanced power to full with no response. Continued with descent to runway touching down at about last 3rd of runway at high speed and applied brakes which was not effective. Determined I was not going to be able to stop; [I] pulled mixture to idle cutoff and began to steer the aircraft to avoid [the] elevated departure end and taxi way lighting. Departed right of center line at end of runway estimated 40 KTS engine was still spooling down and stopped in the grass over run about 150 feet straight ahead. No injuries or damage to aircraft except two flat spotted tires. [Aircraft] was towed to parking. Removed [and] cowl found throttle lever had disconnected from control and bolt was missing.




Synopsis: C182T pilot reported throttle cable disconnected resulting in a runway excursion on landing.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received aircraft and noted that the #1 fuel quantity had hashed lines. There was an MEL applied so we called Maintenance control and quickly determined that there was a new problem. We were boarding and my First Officer (FO) was not familiar with how to stick the tank so I asked the maintenance personnel to do so and give me the fuel load in #1 (the affected tank). As he was qualified to work on the system; my assumption was he was the most qualified to option I had. We were told it was 3;100 LBS.. We applied the correct MEL and had another as the external gauge was also not indicating correctly (no numbers on display).  We proceeded to taxi out and the gauge came alive and displayed a quantity significantly lower than we were told was in it. It also showed it was in excess of the 600 LB limitation. We contacted Maintenance control to see if the change of status and the new imbalance message required any further action. We concluded that the message was allowable under the MEL. We reviewed it further and made a second call to Maintenance control as the gauge was not specifically written up as being erroneous. Again we concluded that this was implied as a reading of nil was erroneous.  We continued to [destination] without incident.Upon post flight I took it upon myself to show the First Officer how to use the system. We did so initially before the fuel truck arrived and quickly discovered we have much less fuel [than] we were told. In fact the actual was approximately what was indicated on the gauge.  We promptly contacted Maintenance control.  I do not believe that the MX personnel were complacent; but made an error that resulted in an undesirable aircraft state. We also expected the amount of fuel in the tank we were told. The noted Maintenance control factor is not with control itself; but the mechanic that was working the flight that gave us the incorrect information.




Synopsis: Q400 Crew had a fuel indication MEL. Problem was compounded by Maintenance after manually checking the drip stick reporting the fuel quantity was greater than it was. This caused a fuel imbalance and incorrect weight and balance data.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We departed [an East Coast station] bound for Paris. Our paperwork reflected areas of moderate turbulence starting around New England. I met with all the Flight Attendants in First Class and thought I did a thorough briefing based on all the information I had. I explained that we would have a bumpy ride and anticipated that it would start about an hour into our flight and that they may be able to start their service but have to be seated before completion. After departure; we got some additional reports from ATC that there were reports of light to moderate turbulence from I believe FL190-FL250. Our relief pilot finished his duties and was ready to depart the cockpit. I mentioned to him to advise the flight attendants to not start their service considering new information. As he was departing the cockpit we encountered what I would consider a moderate bump which lasted one second. The turbulence afterwards was light. I was not advised of an injury until much later. After level off we received a call from the cabin and advised that one of our Flight attendants had been hurt during the turbulence. I asked if there was a Dr. on board and please keep me advised. Some time later she advised us that a Drs. opinion was that we shouldn't continue considering his condition. I talked to the Dr and ascertained his specialty was in molecular biology. I attempted to contact dispatch via sat phone and had difficulty with sat voice not available and later went through [an alternate communication source] which faded as well. We resorted to communicating via ACARS and dispatch attempted contact with [medical services]. After about 10 minutes; Dispatch said [medical services] would not answer. I asked for our relief pilot to be summoned back to the cockpit so I can go back and meet with [the injured flight attendant] personally. After meeting with [the flight attendant]; it was obvious that he was in excruciating pain and needed to get medical help. My First Officer asked dispatch about diverting beginning a conversation where to take [the injured flight attendant]. I then conversed with the crew. We [advised ATC] and returned to [departure airport]. When we landed; no one was expecting us and we waited for a gate for 15 minutes. We were met by paramedics and made preparations to depart the continuation of flight.




Synopsis: A B767 Captain reported one of his flight attendants was injured during a climb in turbulence and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While climbing; JAX Center told us we had opposite direction traffic at 9;500 FT. We began looking out the window and on TCAS. The first indication we had was on the TCAS. It called out 'Traffic; Traffic' and displayed a contact approximately 2 miles in front of us at same altitude. I immediately added more power (although there was no RA) and pitched the aircraft up for a better rate of climb. We got visual contact with the other aircraft and it passed directly under us. The TCAS said it was 400 FT below us when crossing.




Synopsis: ZJX advised an air carrier pilot climbing through 9;500 FT about opposite direction; same altitude traffic and while climbing with traffic on TCAS and in sight; that aircraft passed 400 FT directly below.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approximately 20 mm south of LGA at 3500 ft we encountered what appeared to be a drone. We noticed it at our 1 o'clock and slightly low and it passed immediately off our right wing. We were unsure of its identity at first; but the FO reported that just before we were abeam it; it made an immediate turn to the east away from us. We reported to ATC without delay and they handed us off to the next frequency.




Synopsis: CRJ700 Captain reported a NMAC with a UAV 20 NM south of LGA at 3500 ft.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TPA.Airport, FL
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During preflight FDML review; I noted that this aircraft had an ELAC 1 Pitch Fault and ELAC 2 Pitch Fault the day before. There was a maintenance sign off with a computer system/bite with no faults noted. This is the same aircraft in which I had a simultaneous F/CTL ELAC 1 PITCH and F/CTL ELAC 2 PITCH FAULT [several weeks ago] at FL350. The maintenance sign off was GRN SCAN TEST OF ESCS and BITE check OK. After the problem; I was very concerned that; after the loss of primary and secondary pitch control; the link which caused these two simultaneous Flight Control failures was never identified. I contacted my Dispatcher who placed me in contact with Maintenance Control. After a discussion; a detailed review of the previous flight control failures was conducted. The Pitch Trim Actuator was replaced and all tests were completed. An uneventful flight followed. I would suggest a more comprehensive review of maintenance history anytime there is a flight control problem on any of our aircraft.




Synopsis: A321 Captain discovers during preflight that the aircraft had a ELAC 1 Pitch Fault and ELAC 2 Pitch Fault a day earlier and that it is the same aircraft that he experienced the same problem several weeks earlier. The maintenance sign off was ground test OK; but a detailed review of the previous flight control failures was conducted at the reporters suggestion and the Pitch Trim Actuator was replaced.