elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying in a CE-172SP G1000. At the time of the emergency I was cruising at 6;000 ft MSL and flying about 105 knots indicated. About 30 NM from ZZZ I had a sudden loss of power and a violent shaking of the engine and airframe. Noticing the loss in power I immediately checked the fuel switch and applied mixture full rich and added power and switched to the engine system menu on the G1000 to see what exactly was happening. Under the display for CHT and EGT for each cylinder; Cylinder Number 3 was showing zero for both. Realizing I could have a major problem with the engine I decided to [advise ATC] and ask for vectors to the nearest airport to land as soon as possible. ATC help was immediate and had me fly a heading of 090 and proceed directly to ZZZ1 which was 5 NM away. As I was flying toward the airport I told the controller I had 2 souls; 30 gallons of fuel and that I could have a failed third cylinder. About half way to ZZZ1 I started to get a little more power back but it still was lacking significantly. After the mechanics checked the aircraft 3 days later; they saw that cylinder Number 3 had zero compression and was ruined. I don't know what caused the problem; and am not really sure either. As far as preventing recurrence goes; besides making sure that aircraft like these that are flown this much receive more than required maintenance checks; nothing else comes to mind. Nothing should have been done differently; I performed the emergency procedure to the best of my ability.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported an engine problem that resulted in a diversion to the nearest airport.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While being vectored from the arrival to the ILS6 approach we were issued confusing instructions between approach controllers. The previous controller issued us direct VINGS and maintain 2;000'. Then the next controller issued us 'Heading 090 to intercept.' This is where the confusion started as we were already direct to a fix on the localizer (VINGS) and with the winds aloft (300@50) a heading of 090 pushed us off of the previous track to intercept. The frequency was busy so by the time we queried the controller about it; we were about to go through the localizer. Then there was a break in the frequency so we asked the controlled to clarify and the controller issued '030 to intercept the localizer; 2;000 until established; cleared for the ILS 6 approach'. This new vector and clearance now made sense; but we had already flown through the localizer but and we continued the approach without incident. The causes were busy airspace; high workload on the controller; and breakdown in communication between controllers. This might have been avoided if we had informed the controller upon check-in that we were previously assigned direct VINGS rather than the controller assuming we were being vectored to the localizer.




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving conflicting heading clearances during hand-off between ATC controllers on vectors for the ILS.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pilot Seat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During takeoff the First Officer's seat moved aft several detents after he introduced Takeoff Go Around (TOGA) (Flex) thrust and the engines spooled up. As a result of his seat moving backwards; the thrust levers came out of TOGA into the climb detent. After acknowledging the issue we quickly transferred controls; and I pushed the thrust levers back into the TOGA detent. We elected to continue rather than perform a high speed rejected takeoff. After the after takeoff checklist was completed; the First Officer was able to determine that his seat position adjustment lever had not fully engaged into one of the detented positions; but he was able to push the lever down and thereby lock the seat into a detented position. We chose to continue to our destination and called maintenance about the issue upon arrival.


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


Synopsis: First Officer's seat slid back during first part of takeoff roll. Throttles came briefly out of Takeoff Go Around (TOGA) settings; but were quickly re-set.
Date: 201204
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: SR22
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
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: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As Aircraft X approached my boundary I saw he was VFR at 9;500 FT in field 8. Then I read the remarks said; 'VFR IN TOP.' No; that is not a typo; it used the word 'IN.' I asked the adjacent Approach if Aircraft X was VFR or IFR. They said; 'We show VFR; why?' After the pilot was on my frequency I asked his flight plan; VFR or IFR in VFR ON TOP conditions? He said IFR. We changed field 8 to read OTP/95; and I re-issued maintain VFR on top clearance. Recommendation; I realize we do not use this tool very often; maybe it could be reviewed.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described an IFR vs. VFR vs. VFR-ON-TOP flight plan confusion event; noting more training is necessary for some controllers regarding this issue.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AMA.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Local; Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I relieved a trainee on Local Control. He had four airport vehicles on Ground frequency and four aircraft on Local frequency working Tower and Ground/ Flight Data/Clearance Delivery (FD/CD) combined. I immediately asked the FLM for a Ground Controller. I received a Ground Controller 10 minutes later (too long a wait) and it was the FLM. He worked approximately 5 to 10 minutes and decided I did not need a Ground Controller. I had two jets in the local pattern for Runway 22 with four airport vehicles on Ground frequency with FD/CD. Three vehicles were on one of the active runways. In my opinion this was unsafe to leave one set of eyes on the operation. Make the operation priority one. We never have enough staffing. Backfill overtime on all the special projects currently in AMA. We have two CPC's on National details. Retrain all management that safety first not last.




Synopsis: AMA Tower Controller reports of a period of time when all positions except FLM were combined at Local Control.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; 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 Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for a practice ILS to 26R VFR because of a recent briefing at I90 where some of the staff support specialists determined that in order to sequence a VFR aircraft to IAH and run aircraft beside them on final that is what had to be done. The aircraft went through the final and Monitor North corrected it without issue. A supervisor came to me after it had been fixed and started asking me if I stopped Aircraft Y's approach to which I answered in the negative due to the situation being resolved. Aircraft X then advised the Local north controller that they couldn't complete the instrument approach and monitor north assigned them a VFR straight in. We lost the 1.5 mile class bravo separation but the aircrafts' courses never cross. Need national clarification on adjacent final separation when running a VFR straight in next to IFR traffic on a parallel runway.




Synopsis: I90 Controller reported a loss of Class B separation due to the application of a confusing facility procedure.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B IAH
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On climb out from Runway 15R in IAH after level off at 4;000 feet and abeam the airport on heading 020. As PM (Pilot Monitoring) I noticed what seemed to be a fairly large drone pass the left side of the airplane below us about 500 ft. I reported it to the ATC Controller.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a near miss with a UAS while on climb out.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Took off out of SJC 30L on the SJC2 Departure as filed; SJC2-MOONY-SJC. Everything normal until before reaching MOONY; the plane appeared to do a smart turn towards SJC; Controller said appeared to be 20 miles before the fix. We asked if we needed to turn back; he said no; just give a good rate to 12000 feet. We were already at 11000 feet.Appeared the next leg activated early and we didn't catch it until ATC asked us why we were turning early. I guess it felt normal because we had done the LOUPE Departure which turns at a similar time.




Synopsis: Air taxi Captain reported ATC question an early turn on departure from SJC.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Single Engine Turboprop Undifferentiated
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Flight Engineer / Second Officer; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Engine flamed out due to fuel condition lever coming out of detent. Flameout occurred just after given frequency change. Due to the flameout; I descended from the assigned altitude of 110 [knots] to approximately 070 [knots] before I could restart the engine. During that time; my focus was on restarting the engine and selecting the closest airport for a possible forced landing. I did not communicate with ATC during this time.After restarting the engine; I informed ATC of the situation; climbed back to the assigned altitude; continued enroute; and was told to complete the frequency change to ARTCC.My focus was on restarting the engine and my altitude deviation was due to the engine out. In an ideal situation; it may have been best to advise ATC sooner; but my focus was on restarting the engine. I believed that I followed the correct sequence that I had been taught early in my training: Aviate; Navigate; Communicate.




Synopsis: Turboprop pilot reported an engine flame-out due engine control issue resulted in an excursion from altitude and a late frequency change.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: During ERAM implementation; second day my trainee took a hand-off on Aircraft Y and asked me why 'side' was in the fourth line [of the data block]. We called the ERAM (En Route Automation Modernization) SME (Subject Matter Expert) over and he began to discuss the possible scenarios for the side in the data block. During this time; after we observed on the replay; Aircraft X auto popped on the sector. No handoff was received from East Departure Sector (16). While trainee was working DBN Hi had issues with Aircraft Y and that kept my attention. I never observed Aircraft X's data block going through the airspace. By the time I returned to scanning the sector; the trainee had dropped the data block because it was in ZJX sector 72's airspace with an R indicating someone other than us had the handoff. East Departure Radar controller calls and ask us what we wanted to do with Aircraft X which made us aware of the aircraft. At that time East Departure initiated the handoff and we called ZJX to ask what they required us to do with the aircraft. Aircraft that pop up may need to look different from an aircraft that is handed off already. Do not discuss issues with ERAM cadre during training sessions. Wait until off position.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller describes a problem while training that causes a distraction to the Controllers and an aircraft that auto-pops on their radar. The Controller didn't observe the data block going through the airspace.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed DFW with MEL item; left pack inop. On takeoff about 4000 ft we had a right bleed fault. Leveled aircraft at 6000 ft. In accordance with QRH procedures; right pack was restored. Returned to DFW [and executed an] over weight landing. Touch down was smooth; less than 200 ft per min; on speed. CFR inspected aircraft nothing unusual reported. Returned to gate.


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


Synopsis: After dispatching with one pack inoperative; the aircraft had the other bleed trip which resulted in no pressurization; a very hot cabin; and a return to the departure airport at DFW.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At just over 10;000 FT and descending into the terminal area we heard a loud bang with an abrupt change in attitude. The aircraft pitched down violently enough for us to come out of our seats. I immediately took a hold of the yoke and disengaged the autopilot to stabilize the aircraft. The airplane responded normally to flight inputs but had a harsh vibration. The vibration increased and decreased respectively to our airspeed. Once the aircraft was stable; I transferred the controls over to my First Officer so that I could communicate with ATC and troubleshoot the problem. There were no abnormal annunciations in the flight deck. We concluded that the best airspeed was 140 knots due to the least amount of vibration. We remained at that airspeed until our final approach and landed without incident.

Callback: The reporter states that post flight revealed that a panel on the vertical stabilizer; just below the horizontal stabilizer; had separated from the aircraft. According to the reporter it appeared to the Maintenance Technician involved that the washers that are normally between the fastener head and the panel had been omitted allowing the holes to enlarge until the panel slipped over the head and into the wind stream; separating from the aircraft.



Synopsis: DHC8-200 experiences a loud bang followed by a pitch down vigorous enough to lift the pilots off their seats. Airspeed is adjusted to minimize the vibration being felt; followed by a near normal landing.