elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GIF.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: CTAF GIF
Second aircraft: Beechcraft Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Student Pilot; Solo Cross Country. Com1 went out mid-flight; Com2 had been squawked as INOP before I checked the plane out. Had to switch to handheld radio. Approaching untowered airport from the west. Made a radio call on CTAF frequency 10 miles out; 5 miles out; reported inbound and intentions; and asked for a mic check; which no one replied to. I could hear the traffic but they couldn't hear my calls. There was 1 plane in the pattern as observed from listening to CTAF calls; a Cherokee; doing touch and goes; and 1 plane joining the pattern from the east; a Bonanza. At this point I was 3 miles from the airport; not in the pattern yet. The voices of the pilots of the 2 planes sounded very similar. Cherokee reported midfield downwind and didn't say his aircraft type; and the Bonanza reported downwind shortly after. Knowing both planes were on downwind; and much faster than my Cessna; I thought both traffics would be no factor. I watched Cherokee pass by as I was about to join downwind. Not knowing GA types from being a low time student pilot on a solo cross country; I thought that was the Bonanza; I called over CTAF with handheld and advised that I was joining downwind; behind what I thought was the Bonanza but was actually the Cherokee; but my call could not be transmitted; and all the other pilots heard was static. And they called back saying my call was unreadable. I was already in downwind at this point; behind the Cherokee which I thought was the Bonanza. Ended up cutting off the Bonanza. I called base and final; still unreadable. On ramp; Bonanza pilot gets upset understandably; and I explain my situation to him; that I am a student pilot on a solo cross country; and my com went out and my handheld wasn't working; which he wasn't very understanding of.Was able to restart Com1 and get it working again by restarting the airplane. No further occurrence.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported an NMAC in the pattern at non-towered GIF airport; citing radio failure and aircraft misidentification as contributing.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flying Southeast in a Cessna 182 the Garmin GPS Map-696 with ADSB-In showed another aircraft at out location. Out aircraft symbol on the 696 covered the conflicting aircraft. We could see '01' (100 feet) we could not see if it was a + or -. We maintained attitude and heading while both of us looked. Suddenly what looked to be a low wing Cirrus overflew us by about 50 feet above and 100 feet lateral. The Cirrus continued on with no motion or evasive action taken.Had Garmin's 696 had the conflicting aircraft show on top of our aircraft we could have seen it was just above us and we could have descended.




Synopsis: C182 instructor reported a NMAC with opposite direction traffic. The Garmin 696 showed traffic but not its altitude.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing through FL210 to FL220 we noticed the number 2 engine ITT (Inter Turbine Temperature) rising. We stopped our climb and asked ATC for FL200. While descending to FL200 the right engine VIB (Vibration) icon appeared. Our FA (Flight Attendant) called up and asked what was going on; I told him; 'we are working on a problem and will be landing soon. I do not have a time at the moment.' We reduced the thrust to near or at idle. I told ATC that we were having engine problems. ATC gave us a lower altitude. Then we received a FWD and AFT LAV Smoke warning messages. We smelled smoke. We decided to switch controls from FO (First Officer) flying to CA (Captain) flying. The FO ran the R Engine Oil abnormal procedure checklist. It was the only EICAS message that was most prevalent at the time; other than the FWD and AFT LAV smoke messages. We decided to secure the engine first then assess the LAV situations. After the engine was secured; the LAV smoke messages went away. I told the passengers that we will be landing soon and that we had multiple problems with the aircraft. The FO did notify the FA's that we would be emergency landing in 10 minutes. We ran the single engine procedures checklist and then the descent checklist and the landing checklist appropriately. The landing was uneventful and we taxied to the gate after CFR (Crash/Fire/Rescue) checked us out; and deplaned the passengers. I debriefed the crew and then called Dispatch; Maintenance and our Chief Pilot.


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


Synopsis: CRJ900 Flight Crew experiences high ITT and vibration from the number 2 engine during climb through FL210. The engine is brought to idle and descent is initiated. The foreword and aft lav smoke detectors activate and the engine is shut down. Flight returns to the departure airport for a single engine landing.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; 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; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The FO (First Officer) hand flying a simple departure lost control of the aircraft IFR. Westchester 7 Climb runway heading 163 degrees to 800 feet then a right turn to 320 degrees maintain 2000. [First Officer] put the aircraft in an unusual attitude nose down. I took control and recovered. Happened very fast; at very busy time 30 seconds after departure. I saw he was having trouble. Reacted immediately.Loss of situational awareness by the FO. He got the aircraft 200 feet high then over corrected and then got the aircraft in a nose down bank and slow; 400 feet low. Disconnected the auto throttle; increased thrust; and recovered. To level flight. On heading. What I was handed I lost 400 feet to recover.I have flown with this First Officer before and don't recall any problems. Lack of experience in the aircraft. Asked him what he was flying before and he said the CRJ 900. I think the current stall recovery training; unusual attitude recovery training; was very essential for me in this situation. Plus 35 year professional flying and 25 years in Boeing aircraft.I have never been put in this very dangerous situation ever. Except in the simulator.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported taking control of aircraft after the First Officer lost control of aircraft shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On our descent; visual approach to 26L; pilot flying called for Flaps 9. I selected the flaps to the 9 position; and immediately got a Flap Fail indication on the EICAS and verified the flap position; it was 0. I cycled the flap lever back to the 0 and back to the 9 position; and we both agreed the indicator was still at 0 and we did not feel the effects of the flaps moving. I notified ATC that we had a flap failure and we needed delayed vectors to runway. I believe [we] were leveled at 7;000 FT MSL; and received vectors while I ran the QRC and briefed the no flap landing on 22. I declared the emergency with approach; and they vectored us onto final. A normal approach and; albeit fast; landing were made; and we taxied to the gate.The Captain contacted Maintenance Control; and we were walked through a couple of unsuccessful resets. Maintenance decided to send maintenance techs in the morning to troubleshoot. We went to the hotel for our reduced rest.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 EICAS alerted FLAPS FAIL when the Flap 9 was selected; so the QRH was completed; an emergency declared and an uneventful landing followed.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landed after 4.25 hour flight; deplaned; went up to gate agent to advise we would need grooming and due to the stench in lavatory was going to use restroom in airport while she advised first class passengers that 6 of them would not have meals. Also advised she needed to make sure lavatory had been changed prior to boarding as it would make someone sick due to the stench on aircraft.Came back to gate asked FO who was standing at gate area if plane had been cleaned at which time I heard gate agent advise boarding for priority customers. I asked him if she was boarding he said it appeared so. I went to gate; asked agent why she was boarding without me on board she said she thought I was.Customer at that point told her I had said not to board until I return. When I got to the aircraft 5 passengers were on board and also Captain and other Flight Attendant. They advised gate agent never came down to check if ready to board and passengers just started walking on plane. No one was quick enough to prevent passengers from boarding as they entered without warning. Gate agent did not follow procedure to verify minimum crew on board prior to boarding. Make sure gate agent verifies prior to boarding that minimum crew is on board.




Synopsis: CRJ900 Flight Attendant advised the Gate Agent that she was going to the restroom in the terminal and not to start boarding until she returned. Upon return; boarding had commenced and the Flight Attendant on board stated the Gate Agent never came down to see if the cabin was ready for boarding.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On VFR approach selected gear down all problems started happening. Go around to review problems. Decided ok for landing and came back for runway. Complete manual approach flown by FO. All data dumped from FMGC.CauseL/G Shock Absorber FaultAUTO FLT A/THR FaultCAB PR LDG ELEV FaultANTI ICE STBY FaultAUTO FLT AP FaultVENT BLOWER FaultMaintenance had replaced these switches 3 days prior for same LG problems.




Synopsis: An A319 ECAM displayed 'L/G Shock Absorber Fault; AUTO FLT A/THR Fault; CAB PR LDG ELEV Fault; ANTI ICE STBY Fault; AUTO FLT AP Fault; and VENT BLOWER Fault' after the landing gear was lowered for landing. A go-around was executed followed by a normal landing.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: This is an informational report/operational safety concern at BOS.  Upon our night landing (autoland due to low ceilings; rain and reduced visibility) on BOS Runway 4R; we were given instructions to clear the runway via a left turn on to Runway 33R.  During this low-speed turn with all appropriate aircraft lights on; it was difficult to identify and differentiate markings and the few runway edge lights associated with both runways at this intersection.  As Runway 33R has no centerline lighting; the first centerline stripe on this runway is a fair distance beyond the intersection and was not immediately visible in the wet conditions during the turn.  Additionally; unlike the far end of Runway 33R where yellow lead-on/off lines to Runway 33R-15L serve Runway 4L; no such markings appeared visible to me at the 33R/4R intersection.  Improperly making; misjudging or misinterpreting the left turn onto Runway 33R from Runway 4R could be an issue under night/weather conditions such as ours due to a combination of confusing and meager lighting and markings at this location.  In our case; our aircraft's lights illuminating Runway 33R's northern barrier stripe and the grass beyond while turning was our best cue to keep on with the left turn and join with the first centerline stripe further down the way on Runway 33R.  This is an informational report for dissemination. There was no excursion.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported insufficient runway lighting at BOS Runway 33R/4R intersection makes it difficult to see runway markings and could cause taxi errors.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BLI.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D BLI
ATC / advisory: Tower BLI
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was approaching the northwest reporting point at approximately 2;000 ft. heading 270. I heard another aircraft reporting inbound for landing and observed him at approximately pattern altitude heading approximately 090 and turning right. ATC requested him to report 2 mile right base. I called ATC about 30 seconds afterward; reporting over a lake with traffic in sight. I was told that I was number 2 and to report 2 mile right base for Runway 16. At this point I lost visual contact with the other aircraft as I turned onto my base leg and began scanning. I saw a beacon that appeared to be the aircraft turning onto final. At 2 miles I had not heard the other aircraft call yet; however; I called ATC and reported. The Controller was confused as he had not heard the other aircraft report. A moment later I saw the other aircraft approximately 500 ft. below me turn left and indicated to ATC he was making a 360 degree turn to give way to me. ATC advised him to continue to land and that I was cleared to land number two. I am just returning to flying after 25 years and I am rusty but this was a real wake up call. I realize that I did many things wrong. I should have maintained visual contact. I should have taken initial action to give greater separation. I should have asked when I lost contact and I should not have assumed I had regained contact when I was not totally sure. I should have questioned why I had not heard the other aircraft report.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 pilot reported that a loss of visual contact with another aircraft and loss of situational awareness resulted in a NMAC.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 7S5.Airport, OR
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: UNICOM 7S5
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I conducted a training flight with another experienced flight instructor for the purpose of a high performance endorsement. The flight departed from Independence State Airport (7S5) and returned two hours later. The weather was VFR with cumulous ceilings above 3;000 ft. Surface winds were northerly at 10 to 15 kts. The only flight precaution was AIRMET SIERRA for occasional mountain obscuration. We departed Runway 34 and landed on Runway 34 upon our return. The apron area for loading and unloading passengers; refueling; and parking is located east of the runway; between Taxiway A1 and A2; with taxi lanes on the north and south ends. The airport was on a north wind operation that day; so we used the taxi lane on the south end in order to make an upwind turn to access the fuel island.Five days later we start hearing from other pilots how 'pissed off' [a] hangar owner is that we used the taxi lane in front of [their] hangar adjacent to the taxi lane. Aircraft and other vehicles are often parked dangerously close to the taxi lane in front of [the] hangar; so taxiing requires great care to avoid collision. Many times the hangar occupants shut down; leave aircraft unattended; and block the taxi lane. This causes other aircraft to use the downwind taxi lanes causing unsafe operations; especially for tailwheel aircraft. Being considerate of each other is imperative to aviation safety.




Synopsis: Cessna Flight Instructor reported parked aircraft and vehicles blocking a taxi lane causing other aircraft to take evasive taxi routes to avoid.
Date: 201903
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737-800
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ramp Control instructed Flight Deck to push off of Gate XXA tail to Gate XX. Pushback driver pushed tail in the opposite direction tail to Gate XY; encroaching in the path of an inbound [company] B737-800 to Gate XZ. Ramp Control instructed aircraft to pull back into Gate XXA. Push clearance was given again; tail to Gate XX. Pushback driver pushed aircraft on the center Heavy Line resulting in a near miss with an inbound E170 taxiing on the inner line. Please note this is the second consecutive non compliant pushback from this gate today.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported an aircraft was pushed in the wrong direction which placed it in conflict with inbound aircraft.