elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 50
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA; TRACON NTD
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was on an IFR flight plan to CMA in a position to transition to approach and was seemingly lost by ATC. I was between RZS and DEANO at 9;000 feet on LA center and given a change to [a different frequency]; checked in and said I have information Quebec at my destination and requested lower altitude. I was then told that I should be talking to Point Mugu Approach. When I called them they said to go back to LA Approach; which I did and was told to contact Mugu which I did. It did not seem like any of the controllers knew who I was or where I came from. If the tapes are checked; I believe it will show that I was precisely where I was supposed to be and in proper communication with controllers. My opinion is that I was not handed off properly and was met with less than a professional attitude from controllers.




Synopsis: C182R pilot reported ATC seemed confused about his position and intentions on a flight to CMA.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were in the west practice just south of the Keystone Dam at 4;500 ft. on west heading making a clearing turn back to the north. Once we got on the north heading; my student made the call of altitude and position on our practice area frequency before starting a steep turn to the left. Before we started the turn I looked again to my right and did not see anything. As we came around on our left steep turn at roughly the 200 degree point of the turn; my student caught a glimpse of another aircraft just over us less than 500 ft. in altitude above us and took evasive action. I do not know which tail number it was or if it was ours; we lost it in the sun when we turned back to look for it but student said it was clearly a 172. It is possible that the aircraft was still on with Approach at the time we made our radio call. Other factors; as we turned left in the steep turn passing west heading I got temporary sun spots due to the almost at eye level in the aircraft.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reported bright sunlight reduced visibility during a training maneuver; resulting in a NMAC.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Dispatcher; First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During our ILS approach to Runway 19 at TEB we had an immediate RA. There was never any TA prior to the RA. We were instructed to proceed direct UNVIL and to maintain 2000 ft until established on the LOC; and we were cleared for the ILS 19 into TEB. We were at 2000 ft; established on green needles; waiting for the glideslope to come in. All of a sudden; the RA announced descend; descend now and commanded a descent on the PFD (Primary Flight Display). I immediately turned the autopilot off and followed the RA. We descended approximately 300 ft and stayed there until clear of conflict announced. By then; the glideslope was coming alive and we continued on the approach. We notified Tower; and they asked a few questions both in the air and on the ground. They informed us that the traffic on their radar was showing 2500 ft. When the RA went off; it showed them at 200 ft above us. In the end; everyone was safe and no further action transpired. There was never a TA advising 'Traffic; Traffic' before the RA commanded a descent. This is a prime example of how even in VFR conditions; it is imperative to keep a sharp lookout.




Synopsis: GIV First Officer reported not receiving a TA but an RA and descending to clear the RA.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIC.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-9
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E M98
ATC / advisory: Tower MIC
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: 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 in cruise flight at 2700 ft on a route [to] ANE. I was below the MSP Class Bravo. I could see a 737 landing at MSP about 1000 ft above us; 3-4 miles ahead about to cross our path at about a 90 degree angle. I thought we might hit some wake turbulence; and we did; about a 2.6G vertical jolt which woke up my [passenger].Not sure what I could have done as I was capped to climb by the Bravo above me. Maybe could have circled back to FCM; but a steady stream of 737s and A320s were landing and we had to pass under them all.




Synopsis: RV9A pilot reported encountering wake turbulence from a B737 while transiting a MSP arrival area.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff the PF called for 'gear up' after the PM confidence 'positive rate'. The gear would not retract; handle would not move. The PM then switched the landing gear system to the #2 system and attempted to get the gear up. Again this did not work; gear handle still would not move. The PM asked for a straight ahead climb and level off at 3000 feet. At this time the autopilot and auto-throttles clicked off. The PM began to run the ECAM checklist to regain the autopilot and auto throttles; there was multiple attempts to regain automation and none worked. When asked if we were going to [require priority handling] we discussed as a crew and due to the facts that we were able to stay clear or the weather; had plenty of fuel and were below max landing gross weight we elected not to. During this time the PF took the radios and was vectored back to the runway. The PM continue to troubleshoot the gear issue; calculated TOLD data and run in range and approach checklist. The aircraft was vectored back for an ILS; the approach; landing and taxi in were uneventful. Sensor issue




Synopsis: A300 First Officer reported the landing gear would not retract due to a sensor issue.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: X49.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Champion Citabria Undifferentiated
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: UNICOM X49
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Turning left toward downwind at approximately 1;000 MSL; front seat Trainee observed helicopter nearly head-on that had been blocked by lower wing in turn. [I] performed steep right turn to avoid collision. During a total of 5 landings at this airport; we observed helicopter in apparent orbit overlapping the airport's flight pattern while maintaining approximately pattern altitude. The track of the helicopter's orbit placed it potentially head-on to downwind traffic when turning from east to west. We were unable to contact the helicopter on CTAF. We switched to an adjacent airport's Tower frequency and inquired if they had contact with him. They did not but the helicopter pilot came on without an identifier and stated that 'you have to maintain clearance from me'; to which I replied 'helicopters are to avoid flow of fixed-wing traffic.' He responded 'I can't help it if I received a call in this area.'I do not believe the helicopters' right of way over fixed wing traffic includes the right to intentionally interfere with an established traffic pattern at an airport. In this case; we cut our intended training short by at least 2 patterns to avoid further conflict.




Synopsis: The student and instructor pilots aboard a Citabria suffered an NMAC while in the traffic pattern of uncontrolled airport X49 with an orbiting helicopter pilot who elected not to identify and declare his intentions on CTAF. The helo pilot was; however; monitoring the Tower frequency of a nearby LAL airport but was unapolgetic for his behavior and refused to identify his aircraft when he overheard the reporter's inquiry to the Tower.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ADS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ADS
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine was not producing normal power during initial climb through 2;000 feet at full power input; oil temperature and pressure indications normal during takeoff roll; but out of normal range during remainder of flight; including landing. [Requested immediate return] to obtain landing priority; since tower controller attempted to sequence our aircraft behind traffic we could not see at the moment. Landed without incident; other traffic was instructed to go around.




Synopsis: A GA Pilot's engine was not producing normal power during initial climb even at full power input. All engine indications were normal during takeoff roll but were out of normal range for the remainder of the flight. The Pilot returned to land without incident.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Ground Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While checking the fuel slip and comparing it with the previous flight block in fuel; FO (First Officer) discovered a 6;500-lb. discrepancy. We called Maintenance and asked about another fuel ticket. Maintenance advised us that they could not find one but assumed that fuel was added to the aircraft because of an Inner Tank Fuel MEL was worked on and cleared. I asked if they were going to make the appropriate AML write-up and look for paperwork and they advised that they would and would get back with us. After about 15 minutes; we had not heard from them; so we called and was told that they couldn't find the fuel slip but they were going to come out and check our fuel quantity using the magnetic level indicators. I went downstairs to check on the progress and was informed by Maintenance that they had checked the levels but were going to stick the tanks to recheck. I went back to the cockpit and a several minutes later was informed by an AMT that the Right Inner Tank only had around 4;000 lb. of fuel in it versus the 10;500 lb. that was reading on the Fuel Quantity Indicator. Fuel was uplifted; the tank quantity rechecked; and the previous MEL that was cleared was reinstated.The aircraft had the Inner Tank MEL for several flights prior to being worked on. Not sure if part that was replaced failed or what could have happened. Comparing fuel slips with previous flight block-in fuel is a good check; and my FO made a good catch. Maybe this should be a policy for anyone who fuels; de-fuels our aircraft. Additional training of this would be beneficial during ground school and/or tri-annual training.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported the First Officer discovered a fuel upload discrepancy and a subsequent check by Maintenance revealed that there was 6;500 pounds less fuel onboard than requested.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During descent on the FNCHR arrival to MEM; the aircraft didn't seem to be descending enough to meet the programmed restrictions so the First Officer elected to use Level Change and extend speed brakes to get on the proper profile. After this; he reselected Profile to let the jet fly the profile but; once again; it didn't seem to be slowing at the programmed rate to meet the next restriction so the he again selected Level Change in order to slow. At the same time we needed to descend after FNCHR for LOONR. We both focused on the beginning of descent and didn't realize as we passed 10;000 MSL that we were still at 290 KIAS. As soon as we noticed it; we slowed immediately to 250 KIAS for JESTI; then 210 KIAS for LOONR. We made all the altitude restrictions and slowed to 250 KIAS below 10;000 as soon as we noticed our error.One of our conclusions was that if we needed to revert to Level Change for any reason; we should perhaps leave it there for the remainder of the arrival to avoid confusing ourselves or the jet. I've noticed that; on more than one occasion; the jet doesn't want to slow to the programmed speeds in a timely manner on the MEM arrivals. At other times it works fine. Perhaps the arrivals could also be revised to be a little straighter forward in their design for smoothness of operation.


Second narrative: [No substantive additional information was included in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: Distracted by the failure of their autoflight system to comply with the constraints of the FNCHR RNAV STAR into MEM; the flight crew of an A300 descended below 10;000 MSL prior to reducing to 250 KIAS.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Pilot on parallel Runway XXR lost his engine and made a return to my Runway XXL for [a priority] landing. I was given a lineup and wait clearance; followed by a clear for takeoff straight out on XXL. Upon establishing the aircraft on centerline I spotted the incoming aircraft and before I was able to bring it to Tower's attention they cleared us for takeoff. My student read back the clearance and initiated the takeoff. Shortly after our roll started I took the flight controls back and began a sharp right turn to exit XXL on taxiway Charlie as another aircraft had taken our place.We conducted the training flight as planned afterword.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported taking evasive action to avoid an aircraft with loss of power returning to field.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HWD.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna 425/441 Conquest I/Conquest II
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower HWD
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While taxiing to the active Runway 28L; I passed the hold bars to the active runway. It was dusk and lighting was not very good. The hold bars seemed very far back from the runway; I was holding short of the runway in an area that seemed to be a run-up area but it was past the hold bars and a 45 degree turn before the runway.




Synopsis: A Cessna Conquest pilot failed to recognize the remotely located hold short lines for a full length takeoff from Runway 28L at HWD.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767 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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had [the] Captain tell us on jetbridge that only one [pack] operating and it would be warm most of flight. It may cool off in air; may not. We had concerns as it was 90 plus outside and plane was hot on boarding. Boarded passengers; and they began complaining how uncomfortable it was. After repeated attempts to ask Captain to not go as plane was not cooling off and chillers were written up; he took off. We questioned him again in air saying it was registering 85 plus in the rear of the plane. Passengers hot and crew lightheaded. Captain informed me inflight that we were 60 miles from turning around and going back to [departure airport]. Instead we went all the way to [destination]. Many of us with headaches; no chillers working at this point; all meals compromised. This cannot be ok or legal. What if we had a medical emergency... crew had to work with lights off as it was too hot to turn them on. Shades were kept down.


Second narrative: The entire flight was extremely uncomfortable and passengers displayed an unusual amount of anxiety and discomfort that caused me to worry that someone could possibly suffer health problems during our flight of 8 hours.


Synopsis: B767 flight attendants reported their international trans-Atlantic flight was uncomfortably warm because they were dispatched with one pack operating.