elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing in on Taxiway Bravo a ground support truck with approximately 4 carts in tow did not stop at Taxiway B2 while we were approaching. I saw him coming and saw that he was not stopping. I braked the aircraft and the truck saw us shortly thereafter. He immediately stopped his vehicle but was already on the edge of Taxiway Bravo blocking our progress. We could not continue without him moving first. He moved and we contacted Ground Control to let them know the vehicle cut us off and we had to stop. There was no damage to the aircraft; passengers; or ground support equipment. Ground Control advised an operations vehicle to go speak with the operator of the vehicle.Ground vehicle must have not been paying attention to his surroundings. I am sure ground crews receive training; but perhaps some sort of recourse action for those vehicles that commit errors such as this. I don't know if the operations vehicle talking to the operator does anything. That's if they are even able to identify who committed the action.




Synopsis: CRJ Captain reported a ground conflict with a ground support truck that unexpectedly entered the taxiway.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout the flight attendants reported smoky mist in cabin. Jump seater confirmed same. Declared emergency and returned to [departure airport] for overweight landing.


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


Synopsis: An MD-82 flight crew reported smoke in the cabin on initial climb. They declared an emergency and returned to departure airport.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATC sequenced us approximately 1.5-2 miles behind a B747 landing parallel runway; we were landing 28L and the B747 was ahead of us landing 28R. ATC notified us to use caution due to the possibility of wake turbulence. ATIS indicated wind was variable at five knots. The F/O purposely deviated slightly above glideslope (no more than one dot) and was flying an additional five knots above target speed. As we approached approximately 150-200 ft AGL; we started to encounter the wake turbulence from the B747 that had landed ahead of us. The F/O made good corrections but the updraft and lateral displacement put us in an unsafe position to land. We executed a go-around and were vectored back around for an uneventful landing.ATC sequencing us ahead of (or further behind) the B747 would have prevented this event. Because the wind was variable at only five knots; there was a significant potential for the wake turbulence to affect our landing on the parallel runway.


Second narrative: As the Pilot Flying and cleared for a visual approach to 28L we experienced wake from the aircraft ahead which had landed on the parallel runway in front of us. We experienced the wake at approximately 300 ft and both the PM and I came to the same coordinated conclusion that we should discontinue the approach. A normal go-around and approach and landing were completed. Both Tower and Departure were given the reason for the go-around.


Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported executing a go-around after encountering wake turbulence from a B747 landing on the parallel runway at SFO.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C BNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON BNA; Tower BNA
Second aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I got departures on nonstandard set of headings from a trainee in the Tower. Aircraft X was the 3rd one out of the cluster. I gave him a turn that I thought would pass behind Aircraft Y who was on the arrival. Looked again and saw Aircraft X had accelerated and wasn't going to pass behind Aircraft Y. I gave him a turn and asked Aircraft X if he had him in sight. He said yes and I told him to maintain visual separation. He read back that he would maintain visual separation but I believe he didn't restate his call sign per the incredibly awkward phraseology.We were covered up all day. Eight to nine photo missions; a stupid required ADS-B aircraft that has to log time in the Class C airspace to get a rebate on his new ADS-B; multiple flight school aircraft; and 8 or more F18's inbound for the overhead to a crossing runway. Add to this a FAA flight check aircraft on what I'm pretty sure was a continual illegal ODO (Opposite Direction Operation; ILS check to Runway 20R while we continued to land the other parallel Runway 02R). I was about as frazzled as I've been in years. Chaos. All day. It wears you out and you make mistakes.For the love of god don't approve 7 plus photo missions at the same time on a Thursday which is often our busiest day. Don't schedule a flight check at the same time. Who approved all the military? At least they were full stop. All this mixed in with our regular rapidly expanding air carrier and civil load was chaotic with our poorly designed RNAV's and airspace. We need a TMU (Traffic Management Unit) desk in this facility.




Synopsis: BNA Departure Controller reported receiving departures from the Tower that were assigned incorrect headings.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Logbook Entry; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During initial climbout I dialed a frequency into the number 2 RMU. I noticed as I scrolled through the frequencies the Parking Brake Light began to flicker then remained illuminated. The Captain contacted Dispatch and Maintenance to troubleshoot the issue and review our options. Maintenance advised us to return to our departure airport. We declared an emergency with ATC and notified them we needed to return. We flew a normal approach and prepared for the possibility of landing with our brakes engaged. We requested the fire trucks to be standing by upon arrival. Fortunately; the landing was normal and brakes worked normally. We taxied to the gate with no further issues.The aircraft was down for maintenance earlier in the day due to 'TO CONFIG' error message. We discussed this prior to the flight. During our troubleshooting process; we discussed the possibility of this earlier write-up playing a role in the current issue.




Synopsis: When the parking brake light illuminated in flight the flight crew of an EMB-145 declared an emergency and returned to their departure airport for maintenance attention.  The landing and braking were normal on arrival.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Problem arose when the pilot not flying/Captain was distracted by a radio call. Pilot flying didn't turn at 2.3 DME to heading 280. Turn was commenced after pilot not flying discovered the turn had not been initiated. The turn was initiated at approximately 2.5 DME. There was no other traffic in the area at the time. In the future the crew will conduct a more thorough pre departure briefing to minimize the chance of this occurring again; even with a distraction. Fatigue and distraction were both factors in this occurrence.




Synopsis: A Falcon 2000 First Officer became distracted by a radio call and did not make the TEB 8 SID 2.3 DME turn; but did turn at 2.5 DME when alerted by the non flying Captain.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: M78.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G M78
ATC / advisory: CTAF M78
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed M78 and after landing I was informed that an unknown aircraft crossed close to my aircraft at M78. My company has tracking capabilities continuously showing my location; altitude; direction and speed. I did not see the other aircraft in that area or hear any radio transmissions from the aircraft on CTAF. I had switched to company frequency in about the mentioned area. I was told the other aircraft was on a simulated instrument approach with a safety pilot and was maneuvering for the approach to M78. It was a CAVU day.




Synopsis: A C182 pilot is informed after landing at destination that an NMAC had occurred during his previous departure. The weather was clear but the other aircraft was never detected.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exhaust Noise Suppression
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
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
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On initial climb; started smelling an electrical fire smell. About 5 seconds later; at about 500 feet AGL; saw smoke coming into the cockpit through the vent on the dash. I turned immediately; called an emergency; and tear-dropped with power in to land on the opposite runway I had just taken off from. Once I saw I was high enough to glide in; I pulled power to idle and lowered the nose to try and put the fire out. I decided to leave the engine running as I was over a congested area with housing tracts below; and decided it would be more dangerous to try and make an emergency landing off airport than to leave engine on and fly back to airport as I was only maybe half a mile away. The smoke dissipated by the time I landed; and I taxied quickly back to the terminal where I shut down and exited the aircraft. Upon investigation and talking to the mechanics who inspected the aircraft; it turned out the muffler's back end had blown off; directing all the extremely hot exhaust gases towards the firewall; where the battery and other electrical components were; which was what started the fire. According to the mechanics; when the aircraft was bought the pre-buy inspection did not inspect the muffler well enough as there would have been cracks in the muffler; indicating a potentiality for a malfunction. I felt that my training really prepared me to deal with this emergency in a timely and professional manner. The only things I can really think of that I should improve upon was my radio communications; I spent too much time (thinking after the fact) on radio calls when I could have just said 'mayday mayday; emergency landing.' But the fact that my IMSAFE checklist was good; and both individuals in the aircraft were aware of emergency procedures; made this an invaluable learning experience. Also; checking the muffler is highly important!




Synopsis: C152 pilot reports smelling electrical fumes shortly after takeoff then seeing smoke coming into the cockpit through the vent on the dash. An emergency is declared and a tear drop turn is made back to land opposite direction on the departure runway. Maintenance discovers a failed muffler blowing hot exhaust on the firewall.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TYS.TRACON, TN
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C TYS
ATC / advisory: TRACON TYS
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working Radar West with Aircraft X the IFR pattern for practice approaches. Traffic was somewhat complex at the time with 2 satellite departures off DKX picking up IFR clearances airborne and in conflict with Aircraft X's downwind; 2 satellite arrivals being vectored for approaches into GKT crossing the TYS final; and several other TYS arrivals. When Aircraft Y popped up and requested his clearance still in a 3800 MVA; I climbed Aircraft X from 4000 to 5000 so that I could give Aircraft Y his IFR climbing to 4000 westbound converging with Aircraft X. I informed Aircraft Y of the traffic. I then spent some amount of time dealing with the 2nd IFR popup off DKX and getting a couple of arrivals onto the TYS final. When it appeared that Aircraft Y was clear of Aircraft X's previous path; I climbed Aircraft Y to a higher altitude and moved on to other duties.I was shown a replay that indicated Aircraft Y flew through Aircraft X's 'wake remnant'; with the Falcon replay indicating the conflict for 2 sweeps with 900 feet of vertical separation from the wake.As radar controllers we do not have the luxury of the bright white track line on the Falcon to give us proof that an aircraft is clear of the 'wake remnant'. And of course even the Falcon does not show the wake remnant area; only the location of target hits. Until a tool is designed and incorporated that gives controllers a visual indication of the airspace impacted by the wake remnant; incidents such as this will continue. 2 sweeps of our radar is less than 10 seconds; and we normally run with our scopes looking at a 50-60 mile range. It is just not possible for the human eyeball to make that minute judgment. Then add in a complex situation where an aircraft needs to be climbed/descended as soon as possible to clear other traffic; and there is your recipe for this kind of encounter.Recommendation: Give us an effective wake remnant visual reminder on the radar scope.




Synopsis: TYS Controller reported of a loss of separation with a small aircraft behind a heavy. Controller was charged with a 'Wake Remnant' separation error. Controller would like a wake remnant indicator to be able to be used by controllers.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just as we started to taxi (with three engines running) the #2 engine flamed out. Since this was a repeat write-up; I had the First Officer (FO) asked the ramp tower if they saw any fire or smoke (as in a previous write-up). Ramp Tower said they saw smoke coming from the engine; so I immediately shut down the engine with the fuel lever and fired one fire bottle. The tower then said the smoke was dissipating; so did not fire the second bottle. I called for the fire crews to check out the engine and all appeared OK to them. We were towed back to the gate.[The cause was] an unknown engine or system malfunction.No suggestions other than possibly more preventive maintenance and taking the previous fire report very seriously. It appeared from the previous write-up when fire and smoke was evident that maintenance did not really find the cause of the problem; but serviced the fire bottles and released the airplane for service. But I do not know the full maintenance history.


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


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported Number 2 engine flamed out at initial taxi and smoke was reported coming from the engine; so the fire bottle was discharged and the flight returned to the gate.
Date: 202010
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon starting number two engine; the FO miss-configured the pneumatics panel and left [the] left pack in auto.  Could be due to both packs in high instead of auto while at the gate and boarding due to COVID-19. When number two N2 didn't rise to a normal RPM the FO mistakenly closed the cross feed valve instead of the left pack valve. The N2 RPM began to decrease. We realized what happened and did the memory item; the QRC; then the QRH. No engine limitations were exceeded. The subsequent start was normal.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported taking off with the pneumatics panel misconfigured and the left pack in Auto.
Date: 201605
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
Contributing factors: Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: This is the second time in as many months for the same type of event. As I was waiting on my gate; there was a thunderstorm approaching the airport. I notified Supervisor of the probable Lightning; Wind; and pending safety issues with the approaching storm. They in turn notified the Airport Operations Center. The comment back from the Airport Operations Center was; 'Let me go check the thing in here to see what is happening.' The Airport Operations Control Center; then stated that weather may impact the airport in an hour or so. I then notified everybody that we would be impacted within 5 minutes (We were). During this event; there were many lightning strikes at the airport boundary and the ramp will continue to remain open. After a strike hit on airport property I told everybody to clear the ramp. I was then told that the ramp WAS STILL OPEN. At this time I reiterated that the lightning was on the airport property and it was not safe for anybody to remain outside. After 10 more minutes the ramp was finally closed. The ramp remained closed for approximately 45 minutes.




Synopsis: IAH Ramp Agent reported the ramp was not closed for 10 minutes after a lightning strike.