elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Never; in my years of flying; have I had such a MAJOR scare of what happened. I was descending southbound on the west side of Orlando (in Mode C ring; outside of Class B) toward my destination with VFR flight following when the passenger in the right seat pointed straight on front of us and said; 'what is that'?  Almost instantly; I flew right through the middle of about 5-6 hang gliders; some on both sides; above and below estimating only a 100-200 feet away.  It was an absolute MIRACLE that I did not hit one of them.  If I would have; certain death for whoever I would have hit and maybe all 4 aboard the aircraft I was flying.That evening I called and talked to the controlling Supervisor; he recalled me telling the Controller of my issue; stating the Controller asked him to check the screen.  He said they zoomed and saw nothing. Being hang gliders; I'm guessing they could not pick them up. We talked for a while and I thanked him as he stated there really is nothing they can do.I'm writing this because someone is certain to die if this activity continues. I contacted the company I thought may be responsible and they stated it was not them but another company.  I was not able to find a phone number for them.  This is INSANE for them to do this and not even notify ATC; some day we'll be reading about this accident waiting to happen.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an NMAC event with 5-6 hang gliders while descending toward destination with VFR Flight Following.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: A Challenger 300 was on an ILS approach to Runway 19; ten north of the field when he checked in and was issued traffic that was two miles away VFR at 2;300 FT. From my knowledge that VFR target was not in contact with any air traffic control facility; because he was outside of Teterboro's Class D and outside of New York's Class B. He was squawking a 1200 code. The Challenger did not see the target and continued on the approach. He was again called traffic as the targets continued to converge. He received an RA and was forced to descend to 1;900 FT to keep clear of the traffic. He resumed the ILS approach and climbed back up to 2;000 FT when the traffic was no longer a factor. Upon landing the Challenger was asked if he saw the traffic and he responded saying the aircraft was too fast and too close; and he seemed flustered. I would recommend that Teterboro Airport gain control of the airspace north of Teterboro airport. Aircraft flying within this airspace can currently maintain VFR conditions without ever speaking to any air traffic control facility; causing these IFR aircraft to maneuver off instrument approaches to avoid them. First and foremost this is a concern of safety. Aircraft lingering on the Runway 19 final is very common and situations like this occur too often. Sometimes aircraft do not immediately switch to the Tower frequency when advised by Approach; so when a Conflict Alert is received the Tower may believe that the Approach Controller is issuing the necessary traffic; when the aircraft is on the Tower frequency. These aircraft are in a critical phase of flight and should not have to deal with uncontrolled aircraft on their final.




Synopsis: TEB Controller described a conflict event between an IFR ILS 19 aircraft an an unknown VFR aircraft clear of restricted airspace. The reporter noted this type of event is common during Runway 19 operations because of the current airspace configurations.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I routed the Aircraft X to go around Restricted Areas which were active up to 35000 feet. The next controller turned the Aircraft X direct to a fix. When I realized he'd turned the aircraft I called him to warn him. He decided he wouldn't even try to turn him out at that point; saying if being in the Restricted Airspace could hurt them then (something). When I got off position moments later I asked the Supervisor who'd been standing behind the controller while that was happening if he'd seen that and he nodded; seemingly meaning yes. I asked if I needed to report it. He said no; then yes. I asked him if he was going to fill out a Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) since I thought I didn't need to if he did. He replied he didn't know if he'd really seen it.How are we supposed to be aware of these issues if the supervisor waffles on whether or not to address dangerous situations? Or if turning an aircraft into an active restricted area isn't dangerous; please let us know so we can all do that. For what it's worth; the sector had a Radar Assist trainee and instructor; neither of whom seemed to alert the Radar Controller to the danger. What's the point of either of them?




Synopsis: ZFW Center Controller observed another sector issue a route to an aircraft through Restricted Airspace.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Carburetor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I attempted to start my airplane. As I was following the checklist; I engaged the starter. The engine made a sound I would call a 'backfire' and I noticed black smoke coming from the front of the engine cowling. I initiated the 'Engine fire-Engine not running' procedure from the checklist but the fire did not go out. I exited the aircraft when the smoke started to enter the cockpit. I used a fire extinguisher to attempt to extinguish the fire but was unsuccessful. I was able to get a water hose; push the aircraft in range of the hose; and extinguish the fire.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported an engine compartment fire during engine start.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: GA7-Cougar
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll Out
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I flew from ZZZ1 to ZZZ. I landed just over the number at ZZZ. Halfway down the runway I notice that I did not have any brakes. The airplane continued over the end of the runway and came to a stop.




Synopsis: Pilot reported loss of aircraft brakes on landing roll out caused the aircraft to over run the runway.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cabin crew reported odor; fumes of a chemical nature very strong in back of plane. Pilots smelled 'dirty socks' and donned oxygen masks. We determined it strong enough to return to ZZZ. We were vectored back to an arrival and landed without incident; and did not declare an emergency.


Second narrative: On the climbout the flight attendants called up front and told us they could smell an odor. I was pilot flying so the Captain did all communicating with the flight attendants. We had a brief conversation and did not notice anything too bad at that time. Flight attendants called back again a couple min later and reported having headaches due to the dirty sock smell which escalated to more of a chemical smell in their opinion. We donned our oxygen masks and Captain accomplished QRH procedures as I was flying and working the radios. The Captain decided to divert back to ZZZ. We proceeded back to ZZZ while our masks were on and flew the ILS to XXL...I kept my mask on to the gate and the flight ended without any more issues.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported chemical fumes in cabin noticed by flight attendants. Subsequently; odor was detected in the flight deck. Flight crew executed a precautionary return to departure airport.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the First Officer and pilot flying on this leg; my first on a trip assigned to me to keep my landing currency. We were set up for a straight in visual approach. The radio altimeter was inoperative on my side; but was working fine on the Captain's side and was MELed appropriately. On final approach; I called for 'check spoilers; flaps 45; before landing check.' Shortly after these were completed; the '500' annunciation played. It came sooner than I expected; but I wasn't checking the radio altimeter as often as I regularly do; since I had to look at the Captain's side to do so. At that point the approach was stable and we continued to land. Afterwards on the taxi to the gate; I realized that with the short time between us becoming fully configured for landing; and the 500 feet call; we were probably not fully configured at 1;000 feet above the threshold and should have executed a go-around. During the debrief discussion; the Captain agreed.Cause - My lapse in situational awareness; allowing a descent through 1;000 feet without being fully configured to land. Contributing factor: over-reliance on using my radio altimeter to stay aware of my height AGL during approaches; and not briefing my inoperative radio altimeter as a threat during my arrival briefing.Recognizing my inoperative radio altimeter was a threat and briefing a mitigation strategy; even though we were flying a visual approach and the Captain's side was working. Perhaps a callout at 1;000 feet similar to the '500 to go' call; but i understand there are exceptions and reasons why it isn't required in the procedure.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an unstable approach while on flight to maintain landing currency.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: STAKR3 SID out of DEN has a top altitude of FL230. PDC limited that altitude to 10000. On initial communication with departure control the controller stated 'climb via the SID'. The FO and I were both confused as to what he meant by that. Was it to maintain the top altitude as assigned on the PDC or the top altitude of the SID itself? So I asked for clarification from the controller and it was to climb to the top altitude of FL230. The very next aircraft that checked on was given the same exact clearance. He also questioned the clearance as I did. The controller stated to him that the clearance was valid and it canceled what was on the PDC. Whether or not it is valid I'm actually not sure. What I do know is that it was ambiguous and unclear not only to myself and my FO but the aircraft behind me. Neither one of was sure what 'top altitude' to comply with. The RNAV SIDs are designed to cut down controller/pilot workload but I find that with confusing and ambiguous phraseology it ends up increasing our work load and the possibility of breaking an altitude.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported being confused by a 'climb via' clearance from ATC that did not agree with his PDC.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout passing FL 220; lvl 3 Engine 3 Fire alert with associated fire light in the engine 3 fire handle and engine 3 fuel lever came on. Complied with QRH and [coordinated] with Center. Returned to nearest suitable field.Both fire loops malfunctioned on engine 3.


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


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported receiving a fire alert due to malfunctioning engine fire loops.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E S46
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Airport
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We received a GPWS terrain warning 15 miles northeast of the EUG airport. We were at 4400 ft. We executed the escape maneuver and climbed to 6000 ft. The highest terrain in the area we were in is 3400ft. We were being vectored by cascade approach for a ILS to runway 16R. Cascade approach advised us that this has happened to other aircraft in the same area.




Synopsis: A319 captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning while being vectored for an approach the Eugene Airport (KEUG). An escape maneuver was successfully performed.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BDL.Airport, CT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BDL
ATC / advisory: Tower BDL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on a visual approach to Runway 06 at approximately 4;000 FT flying toward PENNE. We had a quartering tailwind on base and were ask to keep our speed up for traffic to follow us. At approximately 3;000 FT with the airport in sight we began a turn toward HUNEE descending to the glide slope intercept altitude of 1;800 FT. With the speed brake extended we had a pretty high rate of descent. I was in the terrain mode and checked my HSI to see if there was any terrain to be aware of. The only terrain depicted was off to our left and passing behind us. At approximately 2;100 FT and approximately 4.0 NM from HUNEE we received a terrain warning. The pilot flying began an immediate CFIT maneuver and climbed to 2;400 FT. The warning ceased as soon as we began the maneuver. We intercepted the LOC/GS and made a normal landing. I believe that the combination of our ground speed and descent rate triggered the EGPWS event. I really think that when approaching BDL from the west/southwest you need to always intercept at/outside of PENNE no lower than 3;000 FT.


Second narrative: On approach to BDL; visual approach; 5 miles south of the glide slope intercept; 40 KT tailwind; 250 KIAS; (traffic right behind us on approach); speedbrakes open; approaching LOC/GS intercept; we got a 'terrain-pull-up' warning. Lesson learned; Get slow a bit earlier; especially with the big tailwind; and it will lessen the terrain closure; and maybe intercept glide slope a bit higher/further out; and the CFIT warning should not be a factor.


Synopsis: A flight crew reported an EGPWS TERRAIN; PULL UP warning at about 2;100 FT on a night visual approach to BDL Runway 6 because of a high rate of descent to the glide slope altitude eight miles from the runway.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Extra 200/300 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Cockpit Canopy Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying in an Extra 300L; canopy cracked and departed aircraft.  Landed at local field.  No structural or significant damage. Adhered to instructions and transfered plane to home airport.  Not sure what caused the problem; it happened very quickly.  It may have been a bird strike; as there are lots of birds in the area.  I did not however; find any marks or indications of such.  The canopy is a bubble type so it could have been that the object deflected completely off the plane.  Had been flying for some time so I know the latches were all locked.  Inspection of the hinges and latches did not indicate anything unusal.




Synopsis: An Extra 300L canopy departed in flight after cracking for reasons unknown since no hinge or structural damage was found.