elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna 150
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took off from a nearby airport about ten minutes prior to the incident. I was taking my friend on the left seat; and giving him a recreational flight vicinity of the town. About six miles out; I made an initial radio contact to our destination Tower; and requested touch-and-go at the field. Tower goes 'Touch-and-go approved; report left base for Runway 30. You are following C-150 ahead.'I immediately found the aircraft about two to three miles ahead of us; and told Tower; 'I have traffic in sight.' When I flew into the airspace; about three to four miles out; I saw the aircraft was making a left base entry. After a minute or so; I started to turn for base entry at where I believed the traffic ahead made the left base entry; and then I made a radio call. 'Report left base established'. I tried to make the same space traffic pattern. Shortly after I made the left base entry; I lost sight of the aircraft. However I continued to descend at approximately 80 KTS with descent rate of 400-500 FPM. Then just prior to make a turn to final; I saw an airplane flying towards us at normal approaching speed. I knew they were below us; thus I immediately added full-power and executed steep climb. At the same time; I heard a radio call from Tower; 'Maintain North Heading.' Then; I complied with it. When I saw the traffic; it was about two O'clock and 100-200 FT below us. It was right before I was making a turn to final; I took a quick glance at the right side for extended final. A probable cause of the incident could be my scanning after establishing base entry; I was spending too much time orienting myself by keeping an eye on the runway. Also; my division of attention between looking at the airport and traffic was getting poor. I wondered why the traffic suddenly disappeared from my sight after I established left base; and it took so long for them to establish final approach. Only I can think of is they are doing 360 turn or something for spacing. Although this incident could be an FAA-defined NMAC; due to the uncertain distance between the two airplanes; I hesitated to complete NMAC report to FAA.




Synopsis: A C-172 and a C-150 experienced an NMAC while entering the traffic pattern at a controlled airport.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C RDU
ATC / advisory: TRACON RDU
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed RDU and was given a heading which I turned to using a Sandel HSI. The HSI was indicating incorrectly causing me to deviate substantially from the assigned heading. My maintenance facility told me that the problem was probably caused by an electrical disruption. Pilots operating with a Sandel HSI should be made aware of this potential problem.

Callback: The reporter states that his Mechanic believes that the electrical components of the HSI system were not properly seated in their mount or there was a problem with the mount which is being replaced.



Synopsis: SR22 pilot experiences HSI errors shortly after takeoff causing significant heading deviations from the assigned heading. A poor electrical connection was thought to have caused the anomaly.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU Controls
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We left an airplane for overnight with Engine Number 2 and APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) running. Earlier that day we came from ZZZ1 and shut down Engine Number 1 during the taxi after we got 2 minutes after spool down. Then we parked at the gate and started deplaning. We ran terminating checklist; then I packed my flight bag and left for a walk around and never got back to the cockpit. I went around the airplane wearing hearing protection; so I could not hear the engine and APU. I can't remember seeing the fan blades spooled up; either I missed them or they didn't catch my attention somehow. Everything seemed normal for me; so I finished exterior inspection and got up on the jet bridge; where I met the rest of the crew and we left.


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


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported that they left the aircraft for the evening with the Number 2 Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit still running.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Albatros (L39)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a training flight with a student in an L-39 the aircraft overrun Runway 27 by approximately 80 FT. We conducted a normal start; taxi; and runup; testing both the normal and emergency brakes in the front seat. After ten landings we planned a full stop. The student (who is rated in the L-39) landed on speed and in the first 1;000 FT of the runway. We then aero-braked the aircraft until 3;000 FT were remaining. He lowered the nose; applied full forward stick to make sure the weight on wheels switch was open and would allow the normal brakes to operate. My student applied normal brakes and got no response. I checked the brake pressure indicator in the back which showed pressure (in the L-39 this is system brake pressure; it can still be interrupted by the anti-skid system). I called for more brakes; and then took the aircraft and applied full main brakes in the back with no response. I then applied emergency brakes slowly to prevent locking the main wheels (emergency brakes have no anti-skid); and when I got no response applied more emergency brake in the back; eventually getting to full e-brake. When that did not work I instructed my student to apply e-brakes in the front; which he did; but not before the aircraft departed the runway surface. I do not know if the emergency brake in the front worked; the ground was soft and the aircraft overran the runway by approximately 80 FT with no damage to the aircraft or runway lights. The rear seat emergency brake had not been tested in a few months; which I will not do before every flight. The combination of the failure of the rear seat e-brake along with the lack of anti-skid on the brake; necessitating a slow application; caused us to run out of time to try all four braking options on the aircraft before runway departure.




Synopsis: An L-39 instructor reported both the normal and emergency brakes failed on landing so the aircraft departed the runway end without sustaining damage or causing injury.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 4
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Enroute to SMO; and the marine layer rolled in 2 hours earlier than forecast. Reported ceiling was 700 feet broken. The tower had closed about 3 minutes before I commenced the GPS A approach; and the SoCal controller vectored me on to the approach and cleared me for the approach; adding that the last two aircraft had broken out at about 900 feet MSL. Inside BEVEY; that controller issued a frequency change to another SoCal controller; who then advised me that if I didn't have the airport at CULVE; I'd be issued go-around instructions. Without the step down at CULVE; there was no way I was going to see the airport. This all happened within a couple miles prior to CULVE. I briefly leveled at the pre-CULVE mins; but it was clear that it wasn't going to be remotely possible; so I initiated missed approach procedures. The SoCal controller claimed that these are restrictions when tower is closed due to all the arrivals into LAX. Whether or not that makes any sense; these restrictions are not published; and 2 miles prior to CULVE is too late to be issuing information of that importance to a flight crew; particularly when operating single-pilot. After the missed approach; I was vectored to VNY and landed without incident; as the weather was VMC.




Synopsis: CE525 Pilot is advised during the GPS A approach to SMO; that if the field is not in sight at CULVE (1;120 feet) a missed approach is required due to the Tower being closed. With a 700 foot ceiling the field is not seen and the flight diverts. The reporter believes that this restriction should be published as part of the approach and not announced at the last minute; especially to a single pilot aircraft.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Emergency Exit
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I began my pre-flight and noticed that my emergency exit rows were not working. Maintenance came on and they said that all the batteries were dead. The aircraft was brought in from ZZZ1 [airport]; so it was not the first flight of the day.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Flight Attendant the emergency exit rows were not working to pre-flight check due to the batteries being dead.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: M03.TRACON, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E M03
ATC / advisory: Center ZME; TRACON M03
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a vector of 190 from ZME to go around weather and short cut the arrival route.  The Final Controller informed me that the aircraft could have Runway 18R to accommodate its parking.  I assigned the aircraft Runway 18R and told him to proceed to BLEWS (the initial approach fix for 18R; pronounced 'blues'). That heading should have been a right hand turn to about 235 degrees; the aircraft turned left to a heading of approximately 110.  I realized the aircraft was making an incorrect turn and called ZME to inform them that he would be turning back towards the airport.  What the aircraft had done was turn towards another fix in our airspace called BLUZZ (also pronounced 'blues') the north eastern RNAV arrival fix.  After getting the aircraft back towards the airport the pilot suggested on frequency that the those names be changed.  Had there been another aircraft on the arrival from the northeast it would have been a very unsafe situation.The recommendation I make is the same that the pilot made; that one of the two fix names be changed to eliminate any future; potentially dangerous; confusion.


Second narrative: Aircraft Y; checked on the BLUZZ RNAV Arrival at 10;000 MSL.  Due to a slow moving aircraft; I assigned him Runway 18R as the other was landing the left.  As the aircraft entered my airspace; I descended him to 5;000 MSL and cleared him direct BLEWS; the initial approach fix for Runway 18R.  I received no answer for approximately 30 seconds to which I then responded with 'Aircraft Y; Memphis.'  The aircraft then replied 'Oh you; meant B L E W S;' (he spelled it out).  I then gave him a heading of 230; direct BLEWS when able.There are two fixes in or near Memphis Approach airspace that sound similar (BLUZZ and BLEWS; both are pronounced like the color with an s on it) and one should be changed.


Synopsis: Two different reports with confusion of similar sounding intersections (BLUZZ and BLEWS) in the same airspace causing pilots to turn towards the other one.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Working Local Control; the 'hot box' on the strip board had the runway unusable 'flipper' was down for Runway 2R. Vehicle X was working the intersections of Runway 2R and approved on the runway. I was working a PA-18 in the pattern for the 'Ski Strip' and; in order to do so; you pretty much ignore the 'unusable' indication of the 'flipper' because that portion of the hotbox is a 'shared' area for both Runway 2R and Ski Strip 2. A PA-31 called me ready for Runway 2R; and I was just in the habit of looking out the windows following my PA-18 around; and I didn't look at the 'hotbox.' I cleared the PA-31 for takeoff and a few seconds later; Vehicle X called me on the radio saying he was exiting Runway 2R.  I had verified Vehicle X was holding short prior to the PA-31 beginning takeoff roll; but had Vehicle X not heard me clear the PA-31 for takeoff and exited on his own; nothing was done to prevent the PA-31 from taking off with a vehicle approved on his runway.I should have scanned my 'hotbox' before clearing the PA-31 for takeoff. If there was some way to de-combine the hotboxes for Runway 2R and Ski Strip 2 that would be helpful in preventing a repeat occurrence; however I do not see a practical way of doing that.




Synopsis: Local Controller cleared an aircraft for takeoff on a runway on which he had previously cleared an airport vehicle. Vehicle cleared the runway after hearing Controller issue clearance to the aircraft.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
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: APU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute from ZZZ to ZZZ1. Aircraft had MEL for #2 engine generator. Dispatched with APU powering #2 transfer bus. At 35;000 ft. over ZZZ2; APU failed and did automatic shutdown. We diverted to ZZZ2 due to only one AC power source remaining. Uneventful approach and landing. Multiple; unforeseen failures caused the event.


Second narrative: Right generator was MEL'd after gate return at ZZZ. MEL required APU to be operated continuously on the ZZZ - ZZZ1 leg. During cruise FL350 the APU failed; leaving us with a single generator. Accomplished QRH items for 'APU low oil pressure' and decided to divert to ZZZ2 due to the requirement to land at [the] 'nearest suitable airport' from MEL and QRH. [Requested priority handling] in the descent due to [the] nature of [the] malfunction and overweight landing. Landed uneventfully in ZZZ2 6;000 lb. overweight. At ZZZ2 we deplaned passengers; and after a six-hour delay; the APU was repaired and overweight inspection [was] completed. Completed flight to ZZZ1 uneventfully.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported an APU failure inflight combined with an MEL'd engine generator resulted in single-generator operations; which led to a diversion to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a normal pattern and approach to land on runway 19 at my home airport. When I called in; ATIS reported the wind as 180@13 knots although closer in time to the incident it was reported as 210@10 knots. The approach to landing and the flare seemed normal to me and I did not note any significant crosswind effects. On the landing rollout and while I was applying the brakes for an intended exit to a left taxiway the plane swerved to the right. I remember holding in left rudder and braking on both pedals but the plane continued to swerve right. The plane went off the right side of the runway and the left side wing flap hit a taxiway sign that was in the grass adjacent to the runway. The plane came to a stop in the grass a short distance later. There was a right side tire mark on the runway so it looks like the right wheel brakes were locked up or at least doing most of the braking which accounts for the swerve to the right. It swerved so fast that I cannot recall if the left side brake felt weak or not at the time. In hindsight it was pointed out; because I was holding in left rudder at the time; that brake pedal would have been further away and perhaps that would account for a weaker braking feeling on that side anyway. The taxiway sign was substantially damaged. From what I could see on the plane there was a scrape mark under the left wing and damage to the flap. The plane was towed to a hangar. I will be following up with the FBO on the repairs of course and would certainly like to know if they find any abnormality in the left or right side braking systems or if this was purely caused by pilot error. That is; unequal brake pressure that was worsened when I applied left rudder correction. The plane was lightly loaded at the time. In the future I will let the plane get slower on its own and thus have more nose wheel stability before applying the brakes. Also when I adjust my seat position I may put it up one notch closer to the pedals so I am sure to have enough brake pedal leverage when the rudder pedals are not in the neutral position.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Piper PA-28 lost control of the aircraft during landing rollout; resulting in a runway excursion and contact with a taxiway sign.