elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Today while working R87/95 our corner post shut down due to SEVERAL reports of moderate turbulence and one report of severe turbulence. Our corner post had weather (both precipitation and turbulence) directly impacting the fixes.Within 2 hours we were asked to try to 'Test ship.' We still had observable precipitation at our arrival fixes; while other corner posts didn't. Before the test ship made any report; TMU (Traffic Management Unit) told us our arrival fix adjacent to the turbulence reports was open. Test ship reported moderate turbulence. TMU opened us back up anyways.Two arrival fixes with moderate and heavy precipitation AND moderate turbulence reports was opened by Management/TMU. Why?[Houson Center] has several weather events throughout the year. Because of this; it seems there is a 'Why can't they just make it work?' mindset from TMU/Management. Weather days are nasty; things happen. No one expects flow/management to catch everything 100% of the time. It seems like Controllers are constantly bailing out bad plans anytime there's weather. We have discussions about things getting better but it never does.Our culture is supposed to be about 'safety' but we're pushing things that don't need to be pushed. It's not an 'if' something will happen; it's a 'when' if our culture continues this way.Recommendation: Actually make safety a priority.




Synopsis: Houston Center Controller reported unsafe practices regarding Management and weather.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MLB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D MLB
ATC / advisory: Tower MLB
Second aircraft: MD-88
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was on a training flight with my student; who was a couple lessons before his Private Pilot Check Ride. We took off Runway 5 at the Melbourne International Airport (MLB) and departed the pattern to the northwest. We reviewed all the maneuvers the student would be doing on his check ride and then came back to MLB for some landing practice. We were given instructions by the Tower to enter a left base for Runway 9L and to report a 2 mile base. We were given a clearance to do a touch and go on Runway 9L. We stayed in the 9L pattern for 3 landings before deciding to make a full stop back to the ramp. Tower gave us instructions to enter a left base for Runway 5 where we would be making the full stop landing. The winds were coming from 060 at approximately 16 KTS with gusts as high as 23. My student was flying the airplane and he decided to come in with partial flaps and at a higher approach speed because of the windy conditions. On final we established the proper crosswind landing technique and had a stable approach down to the runway. As my student started to round out and flare the airplane; the left wing dropped violently. As soon as I felt the wing dropping; I took controls and added full power and tried to recover the airplane. We were already on the runway; so I decided the safest thing to do was bring the airplane to a stop and taxi back to the ramp. An MD-88 departed Runway 9R while we were on base for Runway 5; Tower did not issue a wake turbulence warning to us. I suspected we caught wind shear and because of our slow airspeed and low altitude I wasn't able to recover before the wing tip contacted the runway. There are a couple of hangars and buildings toward the approach end of the runway so that might have played into account.




Synopsis: PA-28 instructor pilot reported he and his student encountered wake vortex from an MD-88 departing another runway that caused a roll resulting in a wingtip strike.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This report is to highlight the SID on the EPKEE THREE RNAV DEPARTURE at DEN. Our clearance was 10;000 feet cleared as filed. We had a runway change to Runway 8 and our Changed Runway Procedures were accomplished. The new runway was changed in the FMC and new departure was verified. Take off clearance was given and we were cleared RNAV to KIDNG. We were then given clearance to climb via the SID. We crossed KIDNG at 10;000 feet then continued our climb. We checked all the altitudes on the SID and confirmed that at or above FL300 at CLAMR would be our top altitude. We were filed FL310. We requested and received FL270 for a final prior to reaching CLAMR. We later became aware of the top altitude of FL230 and the expect higher filed altitude in 10 minutes note in the routing section. This altitude clearance is difficult to find on the iPad and should be in the PDC clearance and published on the SID as a BOLD top of climb altitude of FL230.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported climbing beyond the charted top altitude of FL230 on the EPKEE3 RNAV SID out of DEN. Reporter commented the chart was hard to read on the iPad.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After advancing power for takeoff power was set and '80 kt.s' was called. At about 90 kts. we got a Left engine fire warning and aborted the takeoff. As soon as the power was reduced to idle the fire warnings went out. We exited the runway and coordinated with Tower; Ground; Maintenance; and Operations. All seemed normal and brakes were cooled so we taxied back to the gate to meet with Maintenance.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported that a fire warning resulted in a rejected takeoff.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the JAIKE 3 RNAV arrival into TEB; we were told to cross JAIKE at 13;000 FT as depicted on the STAR. Left our assigned altitude of FL190; inputted direct to the 13;000 FT on the FMS and set VNAV to allow the autopilot to descend. 4 miles from JAIKE; we noticed we were still high (about 2;000 FT) and then increased our descent rate to make the crossing restricting. Approximately one mile later our FMS sequenced to the next waypoint ILENE and then the Controller asked to increase our descent rate which I acknowledge. Soon after; the Controller handed us off to the next sector. Careful watch over the FMS computer would have prevented us from having to hurry up and increase our rate of descent. The computer calculations from the FMS were off and it would have had us approximately 1;000 FT high at the location of JAIKE if we didn't turn off VNAV and go into VS. The Controller may have seen we were not going to cross at 13;000 FT and that is why they asked us to increase our rate of descent.

Callback: The reporter stated that his aircraft has the Honeywell Primus 2000 FMS. The FMS was properly programmed and flying the profile correctly until approaching JAIKE. During that phase of flight the aircraft was slowing to 250 KTS and was apparently intending to comply with the ILENE constraint; but not the JAIKE constraint. The Reporter confirmed; when asked about the behavior; that he had seen the FMS fly other arrivals and also disregard same altitude constraints which were closely spaced but he had not realized that the behavior was repeating in such a predictable manner.



Synopsis: A BD-700's Honeywell Primus 2000 FMS missed the TEB JAIKE 13;000 FT constraint as the aircraft slowed to 250 KTS and was apparently descending and slowing so as to comply with ILENE; the next 13;000 FT constraint.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Tower, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wind
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; 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
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff and climbing through 3;500 ft. we noted smoke entering the cockpit.  This was second time it happened on the same aircraft; as we had landed from a priority landing from same problem.  We donned oxygen masks; advised ATC; ran appropriate checklists and landed without incident.After the fact our Maintenance personnel bore scoped the engine and found a broken engine oil seal which leaked into the Environmental Control System and fed oxidized jet fuel into the cabin through the PAC turbine.  Engine was swapped after [a] ferry flight.Should have bore scoped engine after first priority landing.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported smoke in the cockpit just after takeoff. The Captain ran the QRH and made an immediate landing. Maintenance found a broken oil seal in the engine.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel Control Unit
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A B757-200 aircraft had the Fuel Flow Governer changed previously for slow/no start condition on Engine Number 2. Removal and Replacement (R/R) was accomplished IAW Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 73-21-01-XX; and the Jet Run-up Handbook (JRH). Five [different] Engine tests were performed [including Test X] and the item FACT'ed [Cleared]. The engine still did not start reliably after return from engine run and further troubleshooting was conducted by next shifts. The last test performed was Test X; [for the] Acceleration/Deceleration Test. This Test goes past the point of the Part Power Stop (PPS); which would not have been possible had the stop been engaged. This was confirmed by ground personnel and RII. The Part Power Stop is in a location that lends readily as a handhold rather than [compared to] cables or plumbing. It is very likely that during the following maintenance troubleshooting and repair the stop was inadvertently engaged. There is no positive lockout mechanism. [Recommend] some type of safety could be installed to prevent inadvertent engagement of the Part Power Stop. Equipment malfunction.




Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports about a Part Power Stop (PPS) that was inadvertently engaged on a B757-200 aircraft engine after a Fuel Flow Governor replacement. Technician also noted the lack of a positive lockout mechanism to properly secure the PPS.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R22
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After about 40 minutes into the flight we decided to do 180 degree autorotations. We requested... [a] local pattern...and got the approval for it. It was a left traffic pattern. We did about four 180 degree autorotations and then we took off for another one. We climbed out and we reached an indicated altitude of around 950 FT to 980 FT after we passed [a local landmark]. I; the instructor; scanned the area for any traffic in the base- final area for the active runway when I suddenly felt my student applying a lot of right cyclic and announce traffic immediately to our 11 o'clock position. I took the controls immediately and in the same moment I identified the traffic as it passed below us on the left hand side of the helicopter. The estimated distance between us and the aircraft was around 70 to 100 FT. I immediately contacted the Tower and advised that an aircraft is flying at estimated 900 FT through the pattern.




Synopsis: Robinson R22 conducting autorotation training at a Towered airport had a near mid air collision with an aircraft that flew through the pattern at 900 FT with no communication.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Passenger
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Staffing; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After aircraft was secured for push; we were de-iced due to overnight frost. The iceman communicated to us de-icing was complete and the aircraft was free of frozen contaminants. After engine start; the Flight Attendant called us and informed us that an overwing Passenger (who is also a Company Pilot) wanted us to know that there was still visible frost on the wings. We called the Ice Crew back and queried them and asked to be de-iced again and to make sure it was done thoroughly and correctly. During communication with the iceman; it seemed clear they were not using proper phraseology and may have been unsure as to what their exact duties were. They proceeded to de-ice the aircraft a second time and then declared they were finished. I had to query as to whether or not the aircraft was now free of frozen contamination. They declared that yes it was; and we continued uneventfullyI feel that this Atlanta Ground de-ice crew was not following proper procedures. It is obviously imperative they do a thorough job. If not for the intervention of the Company Pilot; we would have been inadequately de-iced.


Second narrative: Aircraft was de-iced for frost on the wings and tail at the gate by 'iceman' just prior to departure. After pushback and engine start; a Flight Attendant notified the Captain via the interphone that a Passenger felt there was still a small amount of frost left on the wing. We returned to the gate to have the aircraft de-iced once again. The de-ice crew re-de-iced the aircraft and reported that the 'aircraft surfaces were clean'.After arriving at the gate; a deplaning Passenger claimed that he believed the wings were not completely clean and that there was a small amount of frost left on the wing. (I did not meet the Passenger but was notified of the Passenger's statement by another Crew Member.)


Synopsis: An air crew were de-iced at the gate. After pushback; a Company Pilot riding as a passenger; reported that visible frost remained on the wings. They returned to the gate; were de-iced again and departed uneventfully.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HLN.Airport, MT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Tower HLN
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying a survey line approximately 4 miles northwest of HLN at 7400 ft. MSL. East to west lines. Monitoring Tower frequency to give constant updates of our position near the airport. We were operating outside of the Class D that ends at 6400 ft. MSL. We were advised there was helicopter traffic departing from HLN. My camera operator was sitting in the right seat and advised me that there was a helicopter extremely close to us. Do not know the type of helicopter. I did not see the helicopter but the helicopter advised the Tower seconds after my operator alerted me of a near miss with our airplane. Since I did not have visual before or after they advised a near miss I cannot estimate the distance between aircraft. Afterwards I asked my operator how close she estimated the helicopter to be and she could not determine but was at least closer than 500 ft. She explained she had seen the helicopter flying parallel to our flight path before turning towards us and calling the near miss.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a near mid air collision with a helicopter near HLN airport.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Aeronca Champion
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 7 statute miles northeast of ZZZ airport in cruise flight at 2300 MSL the engine RPM decreased rapidly from 2300 to 700 RPM. The throttle was open and the carburetor heat off. This was a training flight with an instructor and student pilot on board. At the time of the incident the student pilot was the pilot flying. I was monitoring ZZZ1 tower (14 miles to the northeast of ZZZ) frequency at the time of the uncommanded power reduction when I assumed the controls of the aircraft and called ZZZ1 tower frequency.  My intention to proceed for a straight in approach to ZZZ airport Runway XX. ZZZ1 tower acknowledged the emergency call and alerted the appropriate first responders. A helicopter in the area hearing the distress call followed our aircraft to ZZZ; however we never acquired visual contact with the helicopter. I discovered that with rapid multiple throttle movements from full open to flight idle the engine would surge to 2300 RPM and remain there for 2 to 6 seconds and return to 700 RPM. I continued the rapid throttle movements and the engine continued to surge 2300 to 700 RPM. The aircraft was able to maintain sufficient altitude to reach Runway XX at ZZZ. I was unable to switch to CTAF on the overhead radio because all of my actions were required to keep the engine surging 2300 to 700 RPM in hopes of reaching Runway XX. After landing and clearing Runway XX at ZZZ I contacted ZZZ1 tower by telephone and reported out safe landing.




Synopsis: Aeronca Champion instructor pilot reported the engine began surging while at cruise. They were able to make a landing at a nearby airport.