elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-10
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E RSW
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was returning to Base from the south; circumnavigating the RSW Class C airspace to the west; descending through 3;500 MSL and monitoring the RSW Approach frequency. I was squawking 1200 and not participating in ATC control. I saw the CRJ on ADS-B 20 miles out; and suspected there might be a traffic conflict; so I adjusted my descent trajectory slightly to see if that would avoid the conflict. I heard ATC call me as traffic to the jet and heard him acknowledge. As the jet closed in I saw it visually and again attempted to adapt my trajectory to avoid the jet; while avoiding the Class C as well. I did not let the jet out of my sight; however; with our closing speeds approaching 400 KTS; a moment later ATC called a traffic alert to the jet; which appeared to begin a resolution action right into me. I again turned and this time climbed away from the jet; and it passed under me without further incident. I feel like I did everything in my power to avoid the other aircraft. I know that our symbols merged on the radar screen briefly; as it did on my ADS-B readout. This could not have been a good feeling for the ATC controller; but I feel that he had ample time to turn the other aircraft slightly or arrest its descent to avoid the near miss. The airspace was not congested. The question is; why didn't those pilots or ATC do anything until the last possible second? And why did their initial conflict resolution from their TCAS appear to fly them right into me?




Synopsis: RV-10 pilot describes an airborne conflict with a regional jet approaching RWS from the west at 3;000 FT. The RV-10 had ADS-B and it appeared to the reporter that the initial resolution taken by the CRJ pilots was in the wrong direction.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
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: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL329; Captain's airspeed indicator dropped from approximately 280kts to 115kts and altimeter stopped indicating. Controls transferred to FO (First Officer) side; QRH was completed and performance tables referenced. Momentary altitude deviation. ATC alerted. Landed normally and contacted Dispatch and Maintenance.


Second narrative: Cruising at FL 320 PF (Pilot Flying) (Captain in training) noticed airspeed slowly bleeding off then rapidly bled off. Upon getting IAS comparator flags PF called for PM (Pilot Monitoring) to get out unreliable airspeed QRH. Airplane started pitching up and looking down noticed ALT comparator flag as well on PF side. Transferred controls of the plane to PM noticing his side appeared to be working fine. Notified ATC of unreliable airspeed and altitude deviation.  Requested descent to get out of clouds. ATC told us to descend FL 220. Jumpseat pilot had unreliable QRH pulled up on tablet and handed it to upgrade training CA (now PM) to run checklist. Descended down to FL 220 and just before reaching altitude airspeed and altitude came back on CA side. LCP (Line Check Pilot) in FO seat continued to fly and landed without incident.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported airspeed indications became unreliable at cruise so they descended and airspeed returned to normal.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Weather elements / visibility: VFR; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Other Mapping Autonomous
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While performing an autonomous mapping mission of a farm field with my UAS; a DJI Phantom 4 Pro V2 and using Ground Station Pro. An unknown helicopter approached from the north of my operating area to my back. I maintained the line of sight with the UAS at all times. As the helicopter entered my field of vision; I saw that he was lowering altitude as he proceeded south. I stopped the UAS and began to factor if the helicopter was a possible conflict. I began to plan to give right of way and began to bring my UAS to my position east of the possible conflict area. I initiated RTH (return). The UAS returned to my position without incident. The helicopter continued to a hillside about 1/2 mile away and made an off-field landing next to a cell tower. I assume it was doing an inspection of the tower. It then took off again in about 15 minutes and continued south along the mountains. I ceased my flight operations with the UAS. I estimate that there was about a 1000 foot horizontal and a 100-foot vertical separation between the aircraft for a brief time. At no time; in my opinion; was their eminent danger to personnel or aircraft; and appropriate action was taken to avoid any conflict.




Synopsis: UAV pilot reported while on a mapping mission an airborne conflict with an approaching helicopter.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MYNN.Airport, FO
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After landing we had a thrust reverser that would not stow. The TPT reached 780 degrees and the engine was shut down. After the flight; it was entered into the AML. The onboard Maintenance Technician reset the MAX IND after he saw the temperature. The aircraft was not airworthy until after a borescope was completed. When Maintenance had fixed the aircraft; we prepared for departure. I was told that the borescope was completed and that the results were normal. All deferred items were listed and open items cleared. I was later informed that the aircraft was broken at another airport; not MIA; and that the Flight Data Recorder was not on board.The event occurred because Maintenance improperly deferred a maintenance item. I am also under the impression that Management did not believe the discrepancy and were looking for means to discipline the crew for deviating to the Bahamas.




Synopsis: An MD-11 flight crew was unable to stow one reverser after landing and the TPT rose to 780 degrees. The reporter alleges that subsequent maintenance was not performed correctly and that the aircraft had been dispatched with known maintenance deficiencies and with no Flight Data Recorder on board.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: F/O (First Officer) noticed drone below our aircraft over lower Manhattan. I did not see the drone. F/O said it was white and black and thought it was fairly large more commercial type than home use. He reported to ATC and they gave him a number to call after we landed and he did call.




Synopsis: B-737 Captain reported encountering a drone while on vectors to LGA.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The departure from EWR was normal. We initially followed the Newark 2 Departure as instructed via our PDC. Prior to reaching 4 DME IEZA as depicted on the SID; ATC instructed us to turn to a heading of 270 degrees and climb and maintain 4;000 feet. The non-flying pilot acknowledged the ATC instructions and we proceeded to climb and turn. ATC further advised us to climb to 5;000 feet and informed us that there was traffic at our 11 o'clock. The non-flying pilot acknowledge the traffic alert and we pointed out a white traffic symbol on the PFD Map Display. As I turned to the assigned heading; I looked out the L2 window and spotted the Cessna Aircraft about 300 feet below our aircraft. We then received an aural and visual Resolution Advisory 'Monitor Vertical Speed.' The red commands from below the horizon on the attitude display advised us to maintain our altitude at 5;000 feet and not descend. I reduced my bank angle; and ATC re-stated; 'Turn to a heading of 270 degrees.' We informed ATC that we were responding to a RA for the Traffic Conflict. Following the aural warning; 'Clear of Conflict;' we resumed our turn to 270 degrees and informed ATC of our turn.

Callback: The reporter confirmed that their aircraft and the conflicting traffic was in fact in Class B. Neither pilot was aware of ATC talking with the other aircraft or acknowledging ATC was actively aware of its altitude. The crew was shocked at how close they were before fully realizing the TCAS traffic was becoming an issue. The reporter flies this departure frequently and remembered more ATC vectors on that particular departure; but not in reference to the traffic.

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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported experiencing a RA at 5000 feet near EWR while being vectored by ATC.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Manuals; Company Policy
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: During approach to land we were given the instructions to maintain 170 knots until 5 mile final; cleared visual approach following traffic; contact Tower at the FAF. During about the last 10 miles of the approach I noticed I was gaining on the traffic in front of me. As they approached the FAF I was nearly 2.5 miles in trail and still gaining so I made the decision to begin slowing early to prevent us getting too close on the visual approach and to prevent the need for a go around or discontinued approach. I have seen this issue many times with Approach bunching up aircraft and or people slowing early so I corrected to prevent a safety and closure issue.I slowed to about 150 knots about 7 or so miles before ATC had instructed. Separation was kept at about 2.5 miles after my correction and the approach and landing was continued safely and without incident. Like I said I have noticed this issue many many times with both Check Airman and line Captains and I haven't received comprehensive clarification as far as what the FAA feels we should do. I just saw the email today from safety and professional standards about the possibility of deviations for people slowing early on approaches and felt I should [report] my latest experience; but am still wondering. If I am cleared for a visual approach am I not responsible for my own see and avoid and thereby the spacing. Would ATC prefer me to do get too close for their separation monitors doing the assigned speed and then have to issue a go around or cancel approach clearance altogether?




Synopsis: A pilot conducting a visual approach reported reducing their airspeed below the speed assigned by ATC.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Fluid
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We had flown the aircraft in and were scheduled to continue on. On the preflight the FO [First Officer] found black oil streaking down the belly of the fuselage from the pack bay doors to the tail skid. I made an entry in the logbook and the FO contacted Maintenance. The Technician arrived and looked at it. He said that it was just water from the packs mixed with dirt. I found that hard to believe. I explained that we had flown the aircraft in and knew for certain that this happened on the previous leg because the FO; being into photography; had taken a picture of the tail in the sunrise and there was no evidence of oil in that picture. The Technician pushed back. I went down to the ramp with him to show him my concern. There was water dripping from the pack doors. I showed that to him and tasted it to confirm that it was water. I also touched the black oil streak which was sticky and definitely not water mixed with dirt. I told him that I was refusing the aircraft until he could prove to me that the leak was fixed. The Technician explained that he couldn't take the airplane out of service and called his Supervisor. He said that; with the ongoing contract issues; he had to be careful about writing up maintenance issues because 'guys were getting into trouble.' He relayed to us one issue where a mechanic was fired for writing up airworthiness issues that were not specifically related to what he was working on. It seemed that our Technician was reluctant to agree that this was an obvious oil leak because he was afraid of losing his job. The supervisor arrived and found that there were two hydraulic leaks in the wheel well area. The aircraft was taken out of service. The Maintenance Technician was reluctant to agree that an obvious oil leak was an airworthiness issue because he was afraid of losing his job. The Company needs to make it clear to all employees that safety is the number one priority. If Maintenance Personnel are changing how they do their jobs and are afraid of performing their duties as they normally would; then we are at risk.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported finding leaking hydraulic fluid during preflight.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was the first ZBW Center Controller to work Air Carrier X after it departed from KBOS. The aircraft came into my sector on the departure routing and the standard practice is to clear aircraft to the first NAVAID/way point on the enroute preferred routing. In this case; it was the BAF VORTAC. I cleared Air Carrier X to BAF and climbed the aircraft to the upper limit of my airspace (FL230). Typically we do not need to route aircraft in the computer to the fix they're proceeding; but for some reason I did for this aircraft. When I routed Air Carrier X direct to BAF the URET/HOST computer applied a different preferential route to the Flight Plan which differed significantly from the one they had received. I did not notice the change and wasn't looking for one since we haven't had this issue before at this sector. Other sectors and routes have been problematic so we know not to route aircraft direct or if we need to we can use a 6-7-10 amendment. Air Carrier X was handed off to BOS Sector 46 where they continued its climb to requested altitude. They handed Air Carrier X off to Kingston Sector 20 and I believe they noticed the aircraft off course from the route in HOST. There were no traffic conflictions or airspace issues that I'm aware of as a result of this. Recommendation; a patch where URET/HOST computers don't apply a preferential routing without the Controller's awareness. In many cases we see the preferential route that it wants us to apply and that clues us in. In this case I don't believe there was any.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller described a confused routing event; suggesting a URET/HOST software patch that would alert controllers when preferential routings were being applied.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise; we had a Cabin Altitude Warning horn come on. We did the memory items and started our emergency descent. The cabin altitude at the time was about 11;000 feet. We completed the QRH; and diverted to the nearest suitable airport.




Synopsis: A B737-300 flight crew initiated an emergency descent and diverted to a nearby airport when their cabin altitude exceeded 11;000 feet while in cruise at FL370.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Positions were combined up to one position in the LGA area for the night shift operation. I went on break and was recalled into the area by the controller on within 5 minutes. The Controller on said his scope completely blanked out and was working at the adjacent scope that was not consolidated. At the time; there were about 15 aircraft on frequency with winds aloft very strong out of the South. I examined the screen and noticed the JFK sensor was not operational. Tech Ops was in our area when the incident occurred and notified us that the sensor was scheduled to go out at [this time] and that this was a prior coordinated event. The Operations Manager failed to notify our area of the outage thus causing a brief; yet highly chaotic moment for the controller on duty. The JFK area was the only area notified of the outage. All areas must be notified of a RADAR outage regardless of whether or not the area uses the sensor on a regular basis. Especially when positions are combined in the evening.




Synopsis: New York TRACON Controller reported lack of communication from management about a RADAR site going out mid-shift causing confusion and panic.