elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B HNL
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Local Control and I observed Aircraft X flying runway heading off of Runway 8R about 2 miles off the departure end climbing into rapidly rising terrain. I was distracted by another task that initially I did not notice. Aircraft X wasn't on his correct heading. When I looked out the window; I couldn't see him because he blended in with the city lights and I only realized where he was by looking at the radar. As soon as I noticed he wasn't on his assigned heading of 140 I turned him to a 155. I immediately realized the 155 heading was not enough I continued him to a heading of 180. Although both headings I issued where below the MVA.  In order to prevent a recurrence I would recommend making sure the aircraft is doing what they are supposed to be doing by monitoring them closely or telling them to fix the issue quicker.  Also if something like this should happen again I should've issued a Low Altitude Alert. I will review my MVA's so I know what heading I should issue to have him stay away from the rapidly rising terrain.




Synopsis: HCF TRACON Controller reported an aircraft was on the wrong heading and issued two different headings to correct the aircraft but realized the aircraft was below the MVA.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on the HYP 5 STAR to SJC.  At 8;000 feet MSL and two NM prior to GILRO; NorCal issued clearance direct KLIDE.  ATC called out traffic that was observed at 8;500 feet MSL.  Flight crew did not visually see traffic.  ATC issued a 30 degree left turn to avoid traffic but then cancelled that clearance and issued a descent clearance to 6;500 feet MSL.  We received a TCAS RA with contact +400 and a RA descend command.   TCAS traffic was visually acquired by flight crew (GA low-wing prop with red/white paint scheme).  We were in a descent while performing a 5 to 10 degree right turn.  Conflicting traffic was observed descending as well and turning slightly left to keep aligned with our course.  Conflicting aircraft passed directly overhead +400 from our aircraft traveling the opposite direction. Increase FAA education of pilots in the NorCal area.  Highlight high density arrival corridors; proper communication procedures; discuss benefits of VFR flight following; and review proper procedures for a TCAS RA event.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain experiences a NMAC with a light aircraft at 8;000 feet near GILRO. TCAS issued a descend RA and the Captain believes that the intruder was also descending. Both aircraft maneuvered to fly reciprocal courses.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
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: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending via a STAR at our destination the Master caution light illuminated along with the EICAS message TE FLAP ASYM and the TRAILING EDGE warning light on the forward panel. The flap handle was up and the flap gauge indicated flaps up as well. There were no roll tendencies. Due to the asymmetry warning the trailing edge flaps were locked out. We completed the emergency checklist which directed a VREF 30 + 40 approach and landing. We then declared an emergency and flew an ILS approach to an uneventful landing. After landing emergency vehicles scanned brakes with infrared and determined no hot or smoking brakes. Brake temperature in aircraft never rose above Level 2 temperature. Terminated emergency and taxied to gate. Maintenance found a left-hand wing position XMTR connector loose.Earlier in the flight the autothrottles failed as well; but this was a minor inconvenience during the emergency.




Synopsis: A B757-200 flight crew declared an emergency and landed with no trailing edge flap extension after receiving TE FLAP ASYM EICAS warning during their descent.
Date: 201903
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Load Planning called me while flight was enroute to advise that there was dry ice loaded into Pit 2; but was not sure of the amount. Load Planning believes the amount was less than 4 pounds; but may have been less than one pound. No documentation was provided to flight crew. Load Planning [is] planning on filing a report. I advised crew of incident and recommended they file a [report].




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported being notified by Load Planning that flight crew was not provided required Hazmat transport documents prior to departure.
Date: 202104
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: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I departed ZZZ; for a VFR flight to ZZZ1. The estimated flight time was one hour and ten minutes. The aircraft had been at ZZZ since Month 2021 for some touch up paint work. The fuel on board the aircraft was 28 gallons; as indicated by the installed JPI Instruments 450 fuel management computer; installed in the aircraft two years previously. Prior to this flight; I had on numerous occasions verified the accuracy and calibration of the JPI by comparing its data to actual fuel used. This occurred over about 100 hours or more of flight time. When connected to a GPS source the JPI also provides two parameters in addition to total fuel used; and fuel remaining. Mine is connected to a Garmin 430W. They are; fuel needed for the remainder of the trip and fuel remaining at the end of the trip. This is updated on a minute to minute basis. The estimated fuel burn was not more than 14 gallons; leaving a 14 gallon reserve; well within VFR flight requirements. During the flight; I continually monitored the fuel usage and the fuel remaining parameter never changed from 13 gallons. About to enter the downwind leg for Runway XX; at ZZZ1; the engine abruptly stopped. I made a successful off airport landing; which caused no injuries and minor damage to the aircraft; per the NTSB. On landing; the JPI indicated 12.9 gallons remaining.




Synopsis: Pilot reported engine failure on landing and was forced to make an off field landing due to fuel starvation.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MKE.TRACON, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E MKE
ATC / advisory: TRACON MKE
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Prior to departing; my F.O. (First Officer) called MKE clearance and got our IFR departure clearance to climb to 3;000 and upon entering controlled airspace; turn right heading 250 deg. We departed as instructed and after making our last call on CTAF; called up MKE Departure shortly after climbing through 2;000 for 3;000.  MKE confirmed radar identification and assigned us right turn 270.A few seconds after rolling out on that heading; I noticed a TCAS target at my 12 o'clock 3-5 miles and closing in 500 feet above my altitude. I was just beginning my level off with a few hundred feet left to my assigned 3000 feet. I quickly advised ATC of the target. He assigned me 'climb and maintain 6;000' with no mention to the aircraft I had just told him about. Then I received a TA from the TCAS. I advised him that I now have traffic in sight and I am descending. Then a few seconds later my TCAS gave me an RA to 'descend; descend now' (which I was already doing based on what I saw out my window prior to the RA). We ended up passing roughly 500 or so feet directly below an also westbound single engine piston (looked like a Cessna 172). When time permitted; I advised ATC that we got an RA on that plane.Had we had followed ATC instructions and climbed to 6;000 feet; especially if in some form of IMC; we would have almost certainly collided or come extremely close to it. The Controller did not seem concerned about the RA. I advised we were clear of conflict now and he simply told me to climb again to 6000 feet. No query of the RA.




Synopsis: HS125 Captain reported being alerted to an NMAC by a TCAS RA after shortly after departing the airport.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: A80.TRACON, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Our aircraft was on a dog leg to final with our traffic (b757) and field in sight. Approach instructed us to follow traffic; maintain 180 knots until the marker; and cleared us for a visual approach. At the time we were closing on our traffic and were in the process of gradually slowing to 180 knots. We closed to just outside of three miles on our traffic and then slowed to final approach speed to maintain adequate separation for wake turbulence. As we slowed below 180 knots (outside of the marker) I advised the Tower that we couldn't maintain assigned speed due to our traffic. He stated that slowing was not a problem and that we still had 30 knots of closure on our traffic. Landing was noneventful. During taxi-back Ground Control advised us that Approach would like to talk to us but he didn't believe there was an issue since everything appeared normal. We called and spoke with a Supervisor. I informed him that I was not about to let a Controller put us in a bad spot. We followed his instructions to the letter until we couldn't and then we advised Tower that we had to slow further. Supervisor told me that reduced separation on a (B757) is two and a half miles. I believe it is three miles. There was no violation here; but ATC needs to understand that on occasion; a clearance may not work out. I understand that Company has had some deviations at ATL; but from my perspective ATL Approach needs to get off their high horse.




Synopsis: An aircraft on a visual to ATL was requested to maintain 180 kts to the marker behind a heavier aircraft; but slowed in order to maintain 3 miles spacing behind the heavy. ATC objected and stated 2.5 miles is the new separation standard.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After arriving to the aircraft; we began our preflight duties and flows. Upon checking my oxygen mask; I ran the oxygen via the test button for 5 seconds and made sure the microphone worked. However; I immediately saw the O2 PSI go from 1600 to 100 instantly and stay there. When I released the test button the gauge went back to 1600 PSI. I suspected the valve on the bottle itself was in the off position. I told the captain and he agreed. We made an Electronic Log Book write-up and backed it up with a call to maintenance. They came to the plane and the mechanic was shocked. I also believe the bottle might have been slightly open as the gauge did go back to 1600 PSI. However; this would not have been sufficient in a smoke/fire/depressurization emergency.The mechanic turned the bottle on. The test worked normally and we received a new [maintenance release]. The flight continued to [destination].I was concerned as the plane had only been in ZZZ for 20 minutes when we arrived. The [maintenance release] was from ZZZ1 and that indicated to me that the plane flew in that condition from ZZZ1 to ZZZ. I am extremely concerned and want to make sure that we are all safe; as well as our passengers. This is the type of maintenance condition that could have dire consequences if not caught before a flight; and things don't go as planned.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that the crew oxygen system failed to test properly. Maintenance found the valve on the oxygen bottle was not fully open.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
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: Squat Switch
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight at FL350 the aircraft warning system showed the following indications: Master Warning light; red CONFIG light; red flaps light and the aural warning siren. The warning siren could not be silenced except when throttles were in idle which made intra-cockpit and ATC communications extremely difficult. Decision was made to divert and declare an emergency. During the descent when the throttles were retarded to idle; the warning siren stopped. Approach and landing were uneventful. There were no known deviations from ATC clearances or operational procedures. We may have been able to continue to our original destination if the warning siren could have been silenced easily. In our situation; dark night and over water; it seemed unsafe and intolerable to continue in cruise flight with the constant blare of the siren in our ears. When a malfunction causes the airplane to think it is on the ground when in flight and the Takeoff Configuration Warning siren comes on; the distraction level in the cockpit is extremely high which could lead to any number of pilot errors. Recommend providing the pilots with a way to silence the siren when necessary.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B757-200 air/ground switch failed in cruise and because of the Master Warning light with a Warning Horn; the red CONFIG and FLAPS lights; an emergency was declared and the flight diverted.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I was awarded [my schedule for the month of] November 2014. On several occasions; crew scheduling changed my flight duty period to split duty after my FDP had begun. I did not agree with this because all the conditions for split duty were not met. I told them it was not a legal assignment. All the schedulers; including the manager; agreed that it was legal. I also spoke with the ORD Chief Pilot; because I was refusing the assignment. I explained the situation and regulation and he directed me to fly the assignment and that it was legal.  In December; I submitted a similar example to the FAA and received a response today. The FAA agreed that once a flight duty period has begun that it can not then be changed to split duty. Misunderstanding of Part 117 regulations.




Synopsis: A reserve airline Captain was awarded an S4 line. After her Flight Duty Period had begun; scheduling attempted to change her FDP to split duty. She refused to accept. All schedulers as well as the Chief Pilot were against her. She wrote to the FAA. The FAA agreed with her.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While on a personal flight; I inadvertently penetrated the TFR referenced in [an] FDC NOTAM. Before every flight I always check the FAA's TFR page and check weather and NOTAMs through [computer software] and this flight was no exception. I was fully aware of the TFR which was in effect however in this case because of the unclear format in which the TFR was drafted; I misunderstood the affected areas. NOTAM listed two affected airspace areas; area A and area B. Airspace B was very clear in that it affected an area defined by a 7 NM mile radius off the LGA 271 degree radial at 5 NM miles. However airspace A was where my misunderstanding lies. In this case; instead of defining the affected airspace as the lateral limits of the New York class bravo airspace (which is what the affected area was); 50 separate latitude/longitude points were referenced. Because of the way the points were listed; it took up a full screen on the computer to view. However; when I scrolled to the bottom of the list; I saw what I thought were the affected areas which was a 3 NM radius off the DPK 241 degree radial at 5.3 NM and a 3 NM radius off the CMK 215 degree radial at 12.8 NM. What I later [determined] is that these were the excluded areas and NOT the affected areas. Because of this misunderstanding; I estimate that I penetrated the southern edge of the airspace by two or three miles.I would like to make it clear that this was not an intentional deviation. This was just a personal flight that I could have taken in any direction. I have been flying for [many] years and dealing with TFR's is nothing new. If I had any hesitation about whether or not I understood the TFR; I would have stayed away from the area or contacted ATC. I was certain I had read the TFR correctly and feel that if it would have been written in a more clear fashion stating that the affected area was the lateral limits of the Class B airspace instead of fifty separate latitude/longitude points; this could have been avoided.




Synopsis: A local Pilot; familiar with the area and TFR NOTAMs; was confused by the format and depiction of the TFR area; and unintentionally entered the area. He added that a clearer presentation of the affected area would likely have prevented this encounter.