elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Extra 200/300 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was beginning an aerobatic practice (solo) in an area just offshore of the beach near [Location].  This is an area which meets all requirements for aerobatics; is generally safe; and generates no noise complaints.  A flight school at ZZZ sometimes trains in this area. First; I cleared the area visually; the cleared again by checking for any aircraft identified on my GPS display (connected to MODE S transponder); and finally by performing a 270 degree clearing turn.  Satisfied that the area was clear; I positioned over my box center and began an approximately 40 degree dive from 3;500 feet to 2;500 feet to start my aerobatic sequence. At this time; just as I was pulling level; I saw [an aircraft] headed almost straight at me; several hundred feet away. I pulled a hard right climbing turn; and easily avoided any collision risk.  The other aircraft also began a turn to their right; and left the area.To reduce the risk of a future event; I did some homework. I determined it was from a ZZZ flight school.  I called the flight school to see if they use a coordination frequency (they do; XXX.YY) so that I can better clear the area in the future; and announce intentions.  I also made the instructor aware that aerobatic activity is common in a very small area that they may wish to avoid (or use heightened vigilance).In reviewing the trajectory data I note that I was headed approximately southbound along the coast.  The other aircraft had been over land heading east; then turned to the north along the coast.  The other aircraft had been flying at around 1;000 ft over land when I cleared (I was at 3;500); and would have been impossible to see in the ground clutter.Factors:(1) Difficulty of seeing other aircraft in ground clutter.(2) Changes of altitude and heading by both aircraft.(3) High closing speed.(4) Because the other aircraft had been low while approaching; it was probably below ZZZ radar coverage and would not have appeared on my display as part of my SA.Plan for risk reduction:I hope that using the flight school's coordination frequency will significantly reduce surprises. (I typically remained on ZZZ1's frequency.)




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC in aerobatic practice area with an aircraft from a flight school. Pilot stated they would now use the school's frequency to maintain situational awareness.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On approach to runway 4R at EWR; we were level at 3000 ft and had been cleared for the ILS to 4L. We had intercepted the localizer and were maintaining an assigned speed of 170 kts. A 757 had been vectored ahead of us on the approach; and was approximately 5 nm ahead and 400 ft higher than us. We remarked that a larger aircraft ahead and above us presented a significant risk of encountering wake turbulence and that typically ATC would not put us in such a position. We began to feel a few bumps and I disconnected the autopilot. Seconds later; we were rolled suddenly to the left by wake turbulence. I leveled the wings and we requested a sidestep to runway 4L to avoid further turbulence. We landed without further incident on 4L.




Synopsis: Dash 8 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to EWR in trail of a B757.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HIO.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was enroute via the RNAV GPS 31L approach into Hillsboro; Oregon (KHIO). I was between FLOWR and NNIKE when I descended below the minimum segment altitude of 4;000 feet and descended to 2;000 feet. The Tower Controller appropriately and helpfully advised me of my altitude deviation and I corrected it. The conditions were VMC with flight visibility between 7 and 10 miles. The skies were either clear above me or the ceiling was more than 6;000-7;000 feet. I believe I descended below minimum altitude because I grew complacent due to the good conditions and visibility. Instead of knowing that I was between FLOWR and NNIKE where the minimum altitude was 4;000 feet; I believed I was between NNIKE and INTLL where the minimum altitude is 2;000 feet.I can prevent the recurrence of this problem by rigorously briefing each approach and maintaining accurate positional awareness.




Synopsis: The pilot of a small aircraft descended below the published approach minimum altitude due to VFR conditions; complacency and situational awareness.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As I made a turn during taxi; the tiller bound shortly after beginning the turn. I stopped the aircraft to investigate and found the power cord from the First Officers EFB holding the tiller from further movement. We moved the cord and secured it to the EFB mounting. After landing; while exiting the runway the cord had worked its way loose and again interfered with the tiller. In addition; the Captains EFB is situated so that you hit your knuckles on the EFB mounting when turning. This is a design flaw that could lead to a very dangerous situation.  Reposition these tough pad EFB's and ensure that the cords are routed and secured as to not interfere with taxing and turning the aircraft.




Synopsis: B777-200 flight crew reported while taxiing they encountered Electronic Flight Bag interfering with tiller movement.
Date: 201305
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Two [Functional Check Flights] on two consecutive days after contractor heavy maintenance; on the same aircraft. Both days returned single engine due to engine valve discrete while placing fuel control switch to run for inflight restart. After first flight contractor replaced FFG [Fuel Flow Governor]. Fix failed to rectify problem resulting in second single engine return. Engineering evaluating replacement of LP/HP engine driven fuel pumps. Technical crew chiefs provided excellent inflight assistance; evaluation and system debrief to Maintenance. Placement of company technical crew chiefs (Avionics and Systems) should be standard practice on all FCF's after Contractor Maintenance. Their input is invaluable during [irregular flight operations] and for system debrief to the contractor postflight for a positive fix so as to avert a repeat occurrence.

Callback: The reporter stated that FFG stands for Fuel Flow Governor.



Synopsis: B757 Captain describes two single engine returns on the same aircraft when an engine cannot be restarted in flight during a maintenance test flight after Contractor Maintenance.
Date: 202107
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Lithium batteries are not being removed from bags.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ramp personnel reported checked bags with batteries not removed for cargo compartment.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on arrival ECAM appeared indicating possible loss of green hydraulic system. We declared an emergency and continued the arrival. After Captain handled the ECAM; we got another ECAM indicating loss of fuel pump pressure on right main fuel tank. Captain handled the second failure; the rest of the arrival and landing was uneventful. Aircraft was met by crash crew; had to be towed to the gate.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported losing green hydraulic system and a fuel boost pump on arrival. They declared an emergency and were towed to the gate.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CRP.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C CRP
ATC / advisory: Tower CRP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While executing the VOR RWY 18 Approach into CRP; we received a Caution Obstacle GPWS warning prior to reaching the charted step down fix. A missed approach was performed and we were vectored for an ILS to RWY 36 resulting in an uneventful landing. Prior to receiving the Caution the crew had crosschecked the inbound VOR course using the FMC/LNAV system and determined that we were well established on course. The descent rate at the time of the 'Caution' was approximately 300 fpm.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported receiving GPWS obstacle warning on VOR Runway 18 approach to CRP.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was on course from BAHMA to RAJAY descending from 21;000 feet to 17;000 feet. Aircraft Y was on a 135 heading climbing to 21;000 feet. On those specific tracks; Aircraft X would pass off of Aircraft Y left side by about 6 miles. Aircraft X target; however; started jumping within a few miles of where he actually was. This is a radar issue that has been going on in that spot for at least a couple of weeks and Tech Operations has been aware of the issue. Aircraft X target first jumped slightly to the right and his vector line went due east; and then the next hit the target was back on track. It then jumped slightly to the left and showed a due south heading; and then jumped back on track again. At this point I decided to turn Aircraft Y to the right; just to ensure there wouldn't be an issue; but as Aircraft Y was turning; Aircraft X target jumped again; and this time it showed within 5 miles of Aircraft Y target. I believe at this point their altitudes were both passing 19;000 feet; Aircraft X still descending and Aircraft Y still climbing. There was never actually an issue of separation since it was a radar anomaly; but the scope did show the targets about 4 miles apart when the target jumped. After another sweep Aircraft X target was back on track and well outside of Aircraft Y 5-mile ring. I'm not sure what could have been done differently since the target jumps and radar anomalies are a known issue and cannot be predicted. There was no way to know where Aircraft X target was going to jump; but the actual aircraft was always on course and never lost separation with Aircraft Y.




Synopsis: ZMA Center Controller reported an aircraft's radar target on their scope jumping and giving erroneous heading indications led to a erroneous indication of a separation error with opposite direction traffic.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MOR.Airport, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C TYS
ATC / advisory: TRACON TYS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound to MOR airport at 7000 feet. As he entered my airspace at 7000 feet he was in a Minimum Vectoring Altitude at 5000 feet. I descended him to 5000 feet and he read back 5000 feet. By the time I noticed he had descended to 4100 feet at which time I re-emphasized 5000 feet. He made corrective actions to return to 5000 feet. I don't have any specific recommendations for occurrences like these. Perhaps the pilots could use more automation to ensure they do not continue a descent through an assigned altitude. Perhaps (different than our current low altitude alert) STARS could have some function where an IFR aircraft data block could turn red or yellow when beneath a Minimum Vectoring Altitude.




Synopsis: TYS TRACON Controller reported an aircraft descended below the assigned altitude and below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Snow
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: De-Icing Fluid
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Cessna TKS Caravan. One hour IMC flight in light icing. TKS system in normal mode overwhelmed in light icing (As usual). Pilot increased to high mode (middle TKS setting). Usual TKS odor in cockpit; noted usual TKS contamination effects. Received ATC delay vectors; due to traffic; for ILS approach in IFR conditions in snowstorm. Aircraft had 5 gallons of TKS remaining. Approximately 19 minutes of anti-icing capabilities remaining upon landing; not enough for a missed approach or alternate.Aircraft has TKS fluid range of approximately XA:20 on middle setting (high) which is usually required when encountering weather. Aircraft has one hour range in weather Due to limited TKS fluid quantity; equaling time limited icing capabilities of the C208 TKS Caravan. TKS fluid quantity should have similar required reserve requirements as fuel; but based on TKS 'High' setting (middle setting). 'Normal' TKS setting is typically used prior to encountering icing; 'High' is typically required to being overwhelmed by light ice.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Caravan with a TKS system reported concern over the lack of sufficient fluid supply to provide options during icing conditions. In addition; the pilot commented on TKS odor and effects.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While security screening of passenger baggage the TSA staff found a container of Leather and Suede Protector.




Synopsis: Cargo Personnel reported Hazmat cleaning solutions in passenger baggage.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TRI.Tower, TN
Aircraft: Light Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D TRI
ATC / advisory: Tower TRI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: For years as a radar controller at several radar facilities I have been able to radar identify departures and then turn them on course when departing the primary airport because the departure areas were flight checked and charted; etc.. Last week we received a directive that evolved into instruction that we could not do so until the departure had met the MVA. This session was my first working radar since all of that occurred. As Aircraft X departed he checked on; I radar identified them and; as I have done a zillion times; said 'turn right on course' while the plane was still 900FT below the MVA (and above the depicted obstruction in the area). I immediately realized what I had done and corrected my instruction to comply with the MVA. But the tape recorded me un-keying the headset for an instant so I guess that counts as an error.I reported it to my Front Line Manager (FLM) and then checked the tapes to hear if I had; indeed; un-keyed. I had.Go back to what has been safe [in the past] and allow us to issue headings/vectors on contact to departures off the primary airport.




Synopsis: Tri-Cities Regional Radar Controller reported not complying with a directive that no longer allows the departure Controller to vector aircraft off an airport until they reach the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.