elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ1.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Pipeline Patrol
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Company CEO
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately XA:37 on [Date]; pilot was flying 18-19 nautical miles northwest of ZZZ at 4;000 feet MSL and 2;300 RPM; performing an oil and gas production patrol. Pilot noted the engine began running rough. The pilot performed appropriate procedures; ensuring tanks were selected on both; mixture was rich; throttle full; and scanning magnetos and master. The pilot was able to hold altitude with the power maxed out at 2100-2200 RPM. The pilot squawked 7700 and made a call on Guard. Pilot received a call back on Guard from a nearby helicopter who relayed to ZZZ1 Approach. Pilot turned toward nearest airport; ZZZ2 and pitched for Vx; following a pipeline right-of-way in to the airport. Pilot repeated intentions to land in ZZZ2 on Guard and CTAF. Pilot then called company CEO (Name) to alert of the problem. Approximately 10 nautical miles west of ZZZ2; left the right-of-way course and followed Interstate for approximately 20 miles until it intersected a final approach for Runway XX at ZZZ2. Over the time this incident occurred; aircraft gained 700 feet of altitude; which was carried until landing was assured. Aircraft was taxied clear of the runway to the FBO and parked.




Synopsis: Pilot reported engine roughness and power loss; causing a diversion and a precautionary emergency landing.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MCO.TRACON, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B MCO; Class E MCO
ATC / advisory: TRACON MCO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While traveling south en route to FMY; having passed Disney World VFR level at 2;800 FT and having just left Class Bravo airspace; Orlando ATC asked us to vector easterly for spacing as we passed about 30 miles east of the Lakeland Sun and Fun restricted area. While being vectored in slight afternoon haze; a glider appeared turning in front of our flight path; 400 FT away at our altitude; traveling from east to west. My alert student-pilot wife saw it first; shouted; and we diverted left to maximize spacing. I informed ATC about the dangerous close call; and that we hadn't seen the aircraft on our active TCAS. Orlando ATC reported that they did not see him either on their radar. Our TCAS had served us accurately all day. Despite our doing everything as correctly and safely as we could; our lives could have ended because a glider pilot flew without a transponder in very busy airspace; not talking to ATC. I would like that pilot to know the risks his/her behavior creates; in hope that no one dies as a result of a repeat performance. Safety opportunities: 1) gliders should have transponders and squawk in busy airspace. 2) I was being vectored by ATC for traffic spacing; and was doing my best to aviate accurately on the ATC 'short leash' i.e. frequent vector changes. My head was probably frequently down; checking position; TCAS; route consequences of Orlando's vectors; restricted areas ahead; while glancing up frequently. I was behaving more like I would in IMC. 3) Perhaps glider activity should be announced like 'jumpers away' at parachute sites. 4) Glider pilots shouldn't behave like brazen cowboys.




Synopsis: DA-40 pilot experiences a NMAC with a glider near GIF at 2;800 FT and takes evasive action.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B727-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Crew noted leak in Hydraulic System A. Followed appropriate checklists; complied with QRH limitations. Selected divert to closer airport with better surface wind conditions. Divert airport also more appropriate for Company ground support. Also the potential to close runway would have closed destination airport's primary runway. Uneventful landing at divert airport. Cause for malfunction still unknown.




Synopsis: A B727-200's 'A' Hydraulic System developed a leak so the Captain diverted to a nearby airport with multiple runways and more suitable weather than the destination airport.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CZEG.ARTCC, AB
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A CZEG
ATC / advisory: Center CZEG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight plan is Ops Specs B55 Polar into Canadian Southern; Northern and Arctic Control Areas where true navigation is to be conducted per the Canadian Aviation Authority.  Company procedure is to ignore these true navigation practices and navigate in magnetic reference.  Flight plan published numeric magnetic courses today are up to 21 degrees in deviation with the magnetic courses displayed on the pilot flight display while flying to the active waypoint.  We were unable to comply with SOP requiring a check of flight plan vs airplane course direction to be 'reasonable'.  We were also unable to comply with FAA; Canadian CAA and ICAO recommended practices suggest that 2 degrees of display error is reasonable; we exceed that by over 10 times that value today.Magnetic variation stored in the steering IRS computers appears to be near 20 years in deviation from the current magnetic variation revision as issued by manufacturers Honeywell and Boeing for the HG1050 IRS.  Current aeronautical data as required by FAR 121.97 and Ops Specs A009 does not appear to be onboard the aircraft today.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain states that his company's procedure to operate in magnetic heading is not in compliance with Canadian and Arctic Control Area rules where true navigation is to be conducted. Magnetic variation stored in the steering Inertial Reference System (IRS) computers appears to be near 20 years old and in deviation from the current magnetic variation.
Date: 201602
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: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff the landing gear would not come up. We flew the appropriate departure instructions and coordinated with ATC to level off and enter holding. In holding; the Captain ran the QRH procedure whilst I flew the plane and covered the primary radio frequency. The Captain then swapped aircraft control to his seat while I tried the QRH procedure. Confirming the gear would not come up; we made plans to return to [departure airport] while coordinating with ramp; Maintenance and the Dispatcher. The landing was uneventful. Maintenance was outstanding and we were airborne in less than six hours.[Cause was a] failure of the landing gear trim system.I'd rather have the landing gear refuse to come up; than have the landing gear come up without the gear trim system functioning properly. Standard procedures and good coordination made this a non-issue.




Synopsis: MD-11 First Officer reported returning to departure airport after the landing gear failed to retract.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Heavy Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Wake turbulence caused aircraft to lose 500-700 feet altitude abruptly. Maintained control of aircraft. NY Center reached out why we are descending. We advised it was from moderate/heavy wake turbulence. We were in trail of heavy aircraft landing IAD. We were cleared down to FL180 and the remainder of flight was normal.




Synopsis: E145 First Officer reported a wake turbulence encounter in trail of a heavy aircraft resulted in altitude loss of 500 to 700 feet on arrival into IAD.
Date: 202107
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Case
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Inspector; Lead Technician; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This report is for a PW4000-4077 fan exit guide vane assembly. The fan cowl section was removed due to fan exit guide vane inner ring damage. The ring had a hole with multiple cracks emanating from it. Upon removal of the assembly and the disassembly of the vanes; it was discovered that the damage was caused by a broken guide vane attach pin/bolt. It was also revealed that all of the guide vane attach pin/bolts were severely worn.




Synopsis: Inspector reported damage to the Engine Fan Exit Guide Vane Assembly that was beyond repair; resulting in the assembly being scrapped.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound from our western arrival gate. A VFR was transitioning around the Bravo; descending fairly rapidly through Aircraft X's altitude. Approach saw the VFR and stopped Aircraft X above the descending aircraft; who ended up proceeding and descending inbound to BCT. This created a high; unstable; and unsafe approach for Aircraft X. This should not have to be the normal procedure to evasive maneuver aircraft inbound to the 19th busiest airport; on parallel finals; [and] around VFRs who are allowed to fly all through both eastern approaches.FLL airport is the 19th busiest airport in the USA; and one of the top 3 fastest growing; averaging 8% growth each of the last 5 years. FLL has a basic Class C airspace surrounding it that is beyond out of date and unable to aid in the safety of its aircraft on the finals. Planes inbound to each of their parallel runways are not offered any sort of protection until within 5 miles of the field; which allows several dozen VFRs each day to climb; descend; and transition across each final; without ATC advisories creating a very dangerous; unsafe; and hazardous situation in the skies above. The FLL Class C is inadequate; out of date; and needs a major airspace change around it; whether a bigger Charlie; or a full blown Class B before it's too late.




Synopsis: Miami TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict with a VFR aircraft and an air carrier inbound to Fort Lauderdale.
Date: 202106
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C FLL
ATC / advisory: Tower FLL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Approach
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Continued landing from an unstabilized approach. We thoroughly briefed and flew the ILS 10L at FLL. We received a Too Low Flap GPWS warning below 500 feet and failed to execute an immediate missed approach. The First Officer was flying an outstanding approach and was stabilized in all parameters but I had missed the flaps 30 detent despite the fact that I had 'completed'; the Before Landing Checklist and read; and pointed to the flap indicator. I still missed it. I set the flaps to 30 and we landed. Cumulative fatigue and startle effect were definitely contributing factors. I know better than that. I should have commanded an immediate go around.


Second narrative: Landing 10L in FLL. Approach briefed thoroughly. Stable approach the whole way. Captain completed the landing checklist at appropriate time. Read and confirmed flaps 30 but missed that flaps were at 25. At near 500 ft we got the flaps too low on the GPWS. The captain and I immediately realized the flaps were only at 25. He selected flaps 30. The aircraft and approach were stable. Seeing that we did not have much fuel and there was a lot of traffic in the area; we decided the safest course of action was to land the aircraft. The landing was continued in a stable manner in the touchdown zone. Taxied to the gate and thoroughly debriefed that the proper course of action would have probably been to do a go around.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an unstabilized approach.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 0.25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
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 climbout at about 16;000 feet to 18;000 feet; we saw a Master Caution light with an OVHT/DET (Overheat/Detection) message on the recall. As we were evaluating where that was coming from; we had a fire bell and lights come on intermittently. We asked ATC to level off to troubleshoot. We cancelled the bell and tried to assess where the OVHT was coming from and if there was a fire. We [advised ATC] and turned back to ZZZ and continued with the ENG OVHT QRC/QRH (Engine Overheat Quick Referenece checklist/Quick Reference Handbook) as the lights and bells all ceased; there were no secondary indications of an engine fire and we thought the ENG2 OVERHEAT was illuminated. We completed the Diversion Checklist and all the other necessary checklists and landed at ZZZ.




Synopsis: B737-800 flight reported aircraft encountered Engine Overheat Warning inflight.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: FOK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G FOK
ATC / advisory: CTAF FOK; TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We were attempting to land at the FOK airport. We attempted to use the pilot controlled lighting system; and made several attempts to key the microphone to turn on the lighting for landing. However; the runway lighting did not illuminate.We contacted a person on the ground attempted to activate the lights for us using a radio; and reported that they were unable to activate the lights. Air traffic control vectored us directly overhead the airport. We attempted to activate the lights again while we were overhead the airport; and we were able to successfully activate the lighting.We made a normal approach and landing. We unloaded our passengers; and prepared to takeoff. While on the ramp and during the taxi for departure; I tried to adjust the runway lights intensity; and we were unable to do so. We took off before the runway lights turned off; and reported this issue to ATC. I checked later that day; and a NOTAM had not been issued regarding the issue that we experienced.




Synopsis: Captain reported the pilot controlled lighting system malfunctioned at a FOK. Reporter stated they advised ATC but no NOTAM has been issued.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Dispatch was contacted by the Ops Agent who requested that a new release be issued. The agent informed dispatch that the TOW of the aircraft was >2000lbs above the planned TOW due to a higher number of pax/bags. When asked what the new ZFW was for the flight she stated 105.1. Based on that information; a new release was issued by dispatch then printed and distributed to the flight crew. After the flight had departed; dispatch was notified by the ops agent that an error had occurred on the loading schedule and that the flight crew did not have the revised/corrected version on board. After a lengthy and in depth conversation with the ops agent about the current weight of the aircraft; it was determined that the ZFW of the aircraft that the crew was operating under was correct; but the FOB that was indicated on the loading schedule was 3900lbs higher than actual. The flight crew pushed the gate with a loading schedule that did not reflect the actual weight of the aircraft and failed to follow the procedures in the AOM which requires cross-checking the information contained on the loading schedule. The flight crew was informed that the there was an error; the ZFW was correct and asked to concur that landing data would be valid based on the accuracy of the ZFW they were operating under. After concurrence; the flight continued and landed at their destination without incident.After review; it appears to me that the operations agent got 'frustrated' when she was unable to determine why the TOW of the aircraft was higher than planned and failed to give dispatch the correct information when asking for assistance. She did not see the error in her loading schedule fuel section so she requested dispatch issue a new release based on a manipulated payload information in order to push the flight from the gate. This coupled with the flight crew's lack of cross-checking the loading schedule led to the continued operation under a flawed loading schedule.




Synopsis: Dispatcher was notified by Gate Agent that an aircraft departed without the correct weight and balance information. Also; the flight crew did not crosscheck the loading schedule.