elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Dash 8-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: B727 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Airport; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was working the final position on a VFR day. PDX was landing on Runways 10L/10R. There are always VFR targets everywhere crossing through final and zigzagging around our arrival traffic. About half the time the Mode C is indicating that they are low and even though we can't trust the Mode C when it's busy; we just call traffic and trust that the altitude is correct as there would be no way to vector around the hornet's nest of VFR targets flying through final's airspace. Sometimes the altitude is indicating that the 1200 squawking target will be a factor and we have to vector around it. This is a real safety concern. Today; however; there was a primary only target just outside the outer ring of the Class Charlie maneuvering right along the Runway 10 final. This target was a factor for at least 5 aircraft within a 15 to 20 minute period. I even had to cancel an approach clearance for one aircraft; as the primary target reversed course and flew back through final.These events are caused by the fact that no one seems to care that we are having close calls daily with VFR aircraft flying through the Runway 10 final. I have filed countless reports and it isn't doing anything. We need a Class Charlie extension or a Class Bravo airspace at PDX. The airspace needs to be protected much further out because we can't vector close in as per our noise ordinance rules. If that is impossible then there needs to be a VFR corridor at or below a certain altitude. Or you could change the HIO procedures and not allow VFR aircraft to enter or exit the Class Delta airspace from the north. There are several ways we can fix this problem; or at least make it better. But again; no one seems to care. Unfortunately someone or possibly hundreds of people are going to be killed once there is an inevitable mid-air collision. It's only a matter of time. Someone needs to do something.




Synopsis: P80 Approach Controller reported an unidentified VFR target not displaying a transponder created a conflict with several air carriers on final approach.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While working the D-side for 08/09 Sectors; there were numerous re-routes on west bound traffic adding additional volume to the sector. There was weather throughout the sector with aircraft deviating. There were IFR clearances going in and out of the satellite airports in the sector (OGS; MSS; CYCC). Two sets of fighter jets showed up requesting to use the VIPER-ALL airspace with aircraft already in the airspace. During this time; I looked up at the Traffic Situational Display (TSD) and noticed that the sector was red for the current and subsequent two blocks (45minutes). Traffic Management Unit (TMU) had not done anything to reduce this red-sector and we were getting more saturated. The ACL (Access Control List) was more than a page long and usually a 60-70% full ACL is a sign (and accurate gauge) that the sector is busy or getting very busy. Aircraft X called with a request for something that I had never heard of before; a CT flight; I advised Aircraft Y that I did not know what that was and was too busy to deal with it. I then told the CIC that it would be wise to split out Sector 08 to reduce some of the volume and complexity. This did not happen; we were never offered the option to split out Sector 08. The sector remained at an unsafe level of business and complexity and the Radar Controller admitted it was too busy but was reluctant to spin any inbound aircraft. TMU and Management should show some concern for safety and the operation and protect the sectors by putting in appropriate Traffic Management Initiatives to reduce complexity and volume. Sectors should be split as necessary ahead of time.




Synopsis: Boston Center Controller reported traffic saturation due to weather with additional requests from military aircraft.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Aircraft component: AC Generation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise FL340 on ETOPS flight; left generator control off light illuminated. As per QRH; started APU and disconnected left engine generator. Established phone patch with Dispatch and Maintenance. Was advised we were good to continue. About 30 minutes later; APU fault light illuminated and APU shutdown. As per QRH APU was INOP and we declared an emergency and requested a clearance from ATC to divert. Got another phone patch with dispatch advising them of our situation and returned. Landing was uneventful.




Synopsis: B757 Captain experiences a generator failure enroute and the APU is started to take its place. Thirty minutes later the APU shuts down and an emergency is declared. Flight returns to departure airport.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 31
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Cruise phase of flight. 45;000 feet experienced Clear Air Turbulence. Aircraft began to pitch and roll uncontrollably. Airspeed fluctuations +/- 10-20 knots. Loss of altitude was approximately 800 feet. Regained positive control of aircraft after reaching 44;200 feet. No Passengers were on board; no damage to aircraft was done. ATC was immediately notified of occurrence and was issued a descent to 41;000 feet. Incident lasted approximately 15 seconds.


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


Synopsis: LJ31 flight crew reported encountering clear air turbulence and loss of aircraft control at FL450 with an altitude loss of 800 feet.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On short final I saw the wind sock showed a 90 degree wind from the left at about 5 knots or so. During landing roll after a smooth full stall landing the airplane began to drift left. I applied right rudder and some left aileron; which did not stop the left turning. I then applied right brake which did not stop the left turning tendency resulting in a ground loop hitting the right wing tip and engine cowling and one blade of the wood prop. The gear on the Stinson aircraft hangs way down during flight and compresses about two feet when the aircraft is fully on its gear. I suspect that because the landing was smooth and light; the gear was not compressed all the way and the right tire must have dug in at a slight angle exacerbating the left turning weathervaning tendency. I had all the right rudder and enough right brake to skid the tire; but was unable to stop the left turning ground loop. To prevent this I would recommend landing the Stinson L-5 firmly so that the airplane transitions quickly to fully compressed gear legs. I understand there is a cable retrofit on some Stinsons that prevent the gear from hanging down so far. This aircraft was not equipped with that retrofit.




Synopsis: A Stinson L-5 pilot lost control while landing in a slight crosswind and ground looped the aircraft resulting in striking the prop and engine cowl. Landing gear strut extension may have contributed to the aircraft weathervaning.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Workload; Other / Unknown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon flaring for landing at the orange dot; a gust of wind elevated plane to 10-15 FT and then died; causing aircraft to stall and impact the nose wheel; propeller; and the left wing. Nose wheel was damaged such that the aircraft would only turn to the left and I taxied off the runway onto the grass on the north side of the runway. Minor damage to nose wheel assembly; damage to the wood propeller; and slight paint scrape on bottom of the left wing. All of the activity associated with the approach to and landing probably contributed to my inability to recover from the aircraft position after the gust displaced it and pressured me into continuing the attempt to land instead of attempting a go around. Due to the implied pressure of all of the landing traffic and the disruption that a go around would cause; it may have influenced my decision to not attempt a go around when the aircraft first reacted to the wind gust. Potential action to help the situation may be to emphasize in the NOTAM that a pilot should not feel pressured to not make a go-around for any reason if he/she feels it to be necessary and that if a go-around is executed that the aircraft will be worked back into the pattern ASAP without having to return to the transition point to start the arrival all over again.




Synopsis: Light Sport Aircraft pilot reports losing control of his aircraft due to a wind gust during the landing flare. A go-around is not attempted due to the pressures of the fly in.
Date: 201912
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Installed #2 engine PRSOV (Pressure Regulating Shut Off Valve) and on [the] following flight at station ZZZ; [the] high stage check valve was found disconnected. High stage valve is in general location of work performed but high stage check valve was never disturbed.




Synopsis: Technician reported discovering the #2 engine high stage valve disconnected when installing the Pressure Regulating Shut Off Valve.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: [I was] working [Runway] 22R approach at C90. Triple runways were in use and traffic from southwest the Plano Sector was rerouted to the right downwind for 22R. Runway 22L was opened and being used as a trip runway and visual approaches to that runway were in use because the localizer was OTS. Thunderstorms had just passed thru and high winds aloft from the west were a factor. We were using the new fusion RADAR and it was taking some getting used to. The timing of turns is different as is the movement of the targets. I turned base leg from the right downwind behind a heavy Airbus with what I thought was an A320 and was a little early from the west side. Turned in behind the heavy and was being pushed by the wind. Turned in to final and was gaining on the heavy. Tried to obtain visual on the heavy but a scud layer had moved in. [I] vectored the A320 off to the right to avoid loss of separation. Obtained visual on the airport with the A320 and vectored him back in towards the airport. The timing with the new fusion RADAR and the wind played a roll in the use of the maneuvering to maintain separation behind the heavy. More experience with the new fusion RADAR will help with the timing when vectoring to the finals. Many controllers have been late on turns because of the pace at which this RADAR moves and what we've been used to with the old ASR 9.




Synopsis: C90 Controller experienced a loss of separation event claiming the new 'fusion' RADAR.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CID.TRACON, IA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON CID
Aircraft component: Elevator ControlSystem
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon disconnecting the autopilot; pitch control felt sluggish. Had 4-6 inches of movement in yoke before elevator response. I verbally made note of condition and the First Officer made comment of how much travel of the yoke I was making for even small pitch corrections.I was able to make adjustments and compensate for lack of elevator effectiveness for a given yoke input and elected to continue the approach in day VMC using the Runway 27 ILS as a backup to the visual approach. In the flare I had to use much higher amount of control input to achieve proper landing. All normal operational events after landing were normal.The same issue had occurred with this aircraft one month prior.  This was discovered during review of earlier logbooks by the First Officer (not current logbook [on board the aircraft]). Maintenance initially had stated they did not have any record of a history with this issue on the aircraft.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 Captain reported excessive amounts of yoke movement were required to accomplish a desired pitch axis change.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AUH.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D AUH
ATC / advisory: CTAF AUH
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Possible drone sighting SE of AUH airport. I had canceled IFR clearance and picked up other lights that I thought were airplane lights around a 5 mile final for Runway 34 at AUH. Upon landing; lights followed my airplane into airfield. I hurried to clear active runway and lights took off directly east. I taxied to hangar and was called notifying me that lights followed me appeared to be a quarter to half mile behind my airplane. No airplane was seen but believed to be a drone; unknown color; but extremely bright lighted but lights disappeared as object headed east.




Synopsis: PC12 pilot reported UAV in AUH airport area and following pilot's aircraft while on approach.
Date: 201911
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cabin Furnishing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: All interphones in the cabin are incorrect showing the wrong placard. Attached shows photo only the interphone and shows a previous airplane write up which shows the correct placard needed.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported placards for cabin interphone handsets are all incorrect.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: R19 was staffed with only an R-side controller; and the traffic was moderate and building. Rides were terrible and the frequency congestion because of such was high. The workload was moderately busy when an aircraft advised he was descending for traffic. I asked if the aircraft that called was Aircraft Y because I observed his altitude now FL380-FL377. The next transmission was from Aircraft X who informed me that he was descending for traffic above that had lost altitude. It all made sense now and I told Aircraft X that the traffic was passing laterally 2 miles and then questioned Aircraft Y to say altitude. Aircraft Y responded that he encountered 'mountain wave' and lost altitude. I informed the supervisor and the aircraft returned to their assigned altitudes. Weather phenomena led to the loss of separation.




Synopsis: A ZME Front Line Manager (FLM) reported of a loss of separation due to an aircraft getting a mountain wave and descending. The other aircraft first reported to ATC that they were descending for traffic.