elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Second aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After takeoff from ZZZ; still on frequency with ZZZ Tower; I was warned about traffic 9 o'clock a few miles away. I had the traffic in sight - it was pointed directly at me at the time; and due to the distance I determined it would thus pass well behind me. I was at about 1;800 ft.; climbing; and the jet was higher (maybe 3;000 ft.).About 10-20 seconds later; I noticed the jet was in [an approximately] 20 degree left bank turning directly toward me and descending in what appeared to me as a direct collision course.I immediately entered a very steep diving turn to lose altitude as quickly as possible. I descended rapidly from 2;100 ft. to 1;500 ft.; while the jet passed above me at probably 2300 ft. I resumed climbing and returned to ZZZ1 uneventfully. The [jet] pilot reported to ZZZ Tower they received an RA.




Synopsis: PA28 Flight Instructor reported a NMAC on departure climb out with another aircraft on initial approach.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PSC.Airport, WA
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle; Ground Incursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Snow removal operations during active snow storm. Vehicles involved were Snow plow 1 and company (2 snow plows) and Airport 2. There were multiple instances when these vehicle operators were approved onto control surfaces; runways and or taxiways; for snow removal and they went onto different runways and/or taxiways without prior approval. For instance; Airport 2 called for clearance A-D taxiways and was approved. Later the vehicle was observed on Runway 30 midfield on the intersections of Runway 30 and Runway 21R; needing to cross Runway 21L to get there. He had not been approved on Runway 30. Another instance involved Snowplow 1 who was approved and operating on Runway 21R; they were observed on Runway 30 across Runway 21L approximately 1;000 feet down the Runway 30 from Runway 21R and called to exit Runway 30 onto Taxiway A. They were not approved onto Runway 30 just to cross it on Runway 21R. There were also multiple instances where Airport 2 followed along with Snowplow 1 without being a part of their group and without authorization. The vehicles were not consistently reporting off runways and were using large portions of taxiways at intersections without approval. Recommendation: remedial training for airport vehicle operators.




Synopsis: PSC Controller described multiple runway incursion events involving snow removal operations noting the vehicle operators are in need of additional training.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out aircraft started rolling right as the speed increased. At 250 knots about 3.5 degrees of left wing down aileron trim was needed for level flight. This aircraft has a history of flight control problems. We felt it was unsafe to continue with the unknown flight control issue. We told center that we needed to return. Approach was notified of fuel and souls on board. Emergency equipment was standing by. We made an uneventful landing and reported the problem. This was a repeat maintenance issue on this airplane. There was a history of flight control problems. When no obvious solution could be found maintenance tried other remedies that did not address the real  issue. This plane should not have been released until the real issue with the flight controls was addressed. When a serious maintenance issue such as flight controls comes up the maintenance department has to make sure the real problem is fixed and not just get the plane released. This could have been a very serious problem with a more serious outcome if this plane kept flying.


Second narrative: During departure aircraft started rolling left as speed increased. Trim was added until rolling stopped. Trim read 3.5 at 250 knots and 15;000 feet. Called center and advised we were returning. ATC vectored us direct.  Configured the aircraft and landed uneventfully. Aircraft control problem is repeat maintenance write up; causing us concern as to the source of problem.


Synopsis: Flight crew experiences a right wing down rolling tendency as the aircraft accelerates to 250 knots after takeoff requiring 3.5 units of left wing down aileron trim. The aircraft had a history of similar flight control issues and the crew elects to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence; Icing; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beech F90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying under an IFR flight plan and requested deviation 30 degrees left/right for weather.  I proceeded and chose the best route according to XM and the onboard aircraft radar.  I ended up flying through clouds that appeared safer than the rest.  I proceeded to go through the clouds but inadvertently ended up losing altitude and heading due to what I learned a few moments later was a developing storm cell.  After I recovered from the altitude loss and proceeded back on course; the XM painted the area I just flew through as a developed cell.  My corrective action for the future would be understanding XM and onboard radar as tools that may be delayed by a few moments and not give me actual time relevant weather info.  I have also learned how to decipher my onboard radar with more accuracy to avoid problems in the future. Flying through the clouds; my autopilot kicked off and I had to manually take the controls to maintain the aircraft and I did not expect the autopilot to disengage as early as it did.  In the future I will be more diligent about the autopilot disengage as to not lose as much altitude and/or heading.  This was a learning experience that I will use in the future as to refrain from deviated altitude and heading.




Synopsis: King Air pilot reports using XM Nexrad and onboard Radar to avoid heavy weather but still encountering turbulence that causes the autopilot to disengage with resulting altitude and heading deviations.  Both systems show the area as a developed cell shortly after passing through.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll; experienced engine roughness and loud metal on metal sound. IP and PUI immediately recognized the sound and initiated an aborted takeoff to taxi clear of the runway. The engine oil temp at the time of the incident was approximately 220 degrees and oil pressure was indicating in green. CHTs and EGTs all in the green as well.




Synopsis: SR20 instructor pilot reported rejecting the takeoff after experiencing engine roughness and metal-on-metal sounds.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I chose [aircraft] however this effects multiple aircraft across fleet types. There appears to be a growing concern for the potential of an EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT FAILURE on the flight decks of many aircraft; that if not addressed could lead to the lack of oxygen equipment for our flight crews. The fleets affected are any aircraft flying the Zodiac (EROS) Crew Oxygen Mask; with hose assembly MPN: DTS4058; DTS4032; and DTS4069. For [company] that includes the 737; 757; 767; 777; 787 and all Airbus Aircraft. There was an FAA AD (Airworthiness Directive) 2015-08-07 that applied to the inflation harness for the masks that had a comfort harness. My point in bringing that up is because the supply line that supplies 80 PSIG (Pounds per Square Inch Gauge) to the regulator of the mask has the same issue of separation that the comfort harness had; yet the supply line was not addressed in the FAA AD. Since the first quarter of 2017 the oxygen mask shop in ZZZ that performs maintenance on these masks has been collecting data and is seeing a rise in separation failures. Some of these supply hoses are coming apart with less than a year in service; with a few lasting 90 days. The shop has collected approximately 230 either separated hoses or hoses that were caught by the flight crew before separation.

Callback: Talked with Maintenance Technician who filed the report and he said that the issue is the Oxygen Line casing which is a fabric mesh over the rubber line which will get frayed due to frequent use by Flight Crews due to the requirement for pilots to don the mask if a crew member has to leave the cockpit in flight. He mentioned that the manufacturer is working on a solution to this problem. He didn't know how long it would be before it is available to the customers to procure. He did say that this is a bigger problem for domestic air carriers due to the requirement for one pilot to don the mask when the other pilot leaves the cockpit as opposed to foreign carriers which may not be required to do this by their regulatory authorities.



Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reports that the EROS Flight Crew Oxygen Mask has a defective supply line.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Second aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Climbing through 10;000 [feet]; ATC assigns 220 heading; then direct MNATE when able.  While climbing through 11;000 and approaching 280 knots; ATC directs; 'Expedite climb through 14;000.'  Speed intervention selected and dialed in 265 knots.  Perhaps 2-3 seconds later TCAS announces; 'Traffic.'  Target appears on ND 1;300 feet above and directly ahead perhaps 3-4 miles; maximum.  Acquired visual contact and determined that a RA was likely going to happen within seconds.  Not knowing the other aircraft type or intentions; I made the decision to stop climb below the target aircraft and turn left approximately 20 degrees.  While announcing this to the First Officer and executing the changes; but before telling him to notify ATC; ATC orders us to turn left 15 degrees and stop climb at 12;500. As this is happening; I observe the target aircraft; a Cessna Caravan; turning to a westerly heading and several skydivers departing the aircraft.  We were a bit busy at this point in time; and I did not note the exact distance or altitude separation at the closest point; but I estimate we were less than 1;000 feet below the Caravan and less than 2 miles away.  This is after deviating from the original ATC clearance to avoid a potential conflict.  Absent the deviation; a RA or worse would have been the result.  In my opinion; human error on the part of ATC. They were aware of the jump aircraft; and yet we were assigned a heading and altitude that caused a TA.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports an airborne conflict with a C208 dropping skydivers.  ATC was in contact with both aircraft and issued last minute heading and altitude instructions to the reporter to avoid collision.  A TCAS TA was annunciated.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The C152 I train out of generally has an exhaust smell when the cabin heat is on. My instructor said it was normal so I usually ignore it. On the date of the event; I was flying with an instructor to do patterns. After doing the first touch and go; my instructor asked if I smelled any exhaust smell. I said I did; but I thought it was normal. A few seconds later my instructor noticed smoke in the cabin (But I didn't); so he took over controls; did a 180 and made a short landing. After taxiing to a parking spot; I got out of the plane and my instructor ran the plane to full power; and I noticed smoke coming out the bottom of the plane. After cutting the power and the mechanic drove over; he pointed out that the engine hull was cracked; and dripping engine oil onto the exhaust; causing the smoke.Contributing factors was (according to the mechanic) probably that the engine was in warranty to 100;000 hours and it was at 130;000 hours; and the crack was due to engine fatigue.My main problem was that I didn't recognize there was anything wrong with the engine even after the plane was landed because (1) I didn't think the exhaust smell was out of place and (2) I didn't notice smoke. If the instructor wasn't around I probably wouldn't have known anything was wrong until the engine actually caught on fire.




Synopsis: A student pilot reported that while training with a flight instructor in a C152; smoke was observed in the cabin. After the instructor performed a precautionary landing; oil was discovered to be leaking from a crack in the engine case.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HLX.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The Aeronautical Information Manual request pilots who encounter incorrect or confusing runway markings to report these issues.  HLX airport (Twin County Airport in Hillsville; Virginia) does not have any of the mandatory runway holding position signs as described in AIM 2-3-8 at any of the runway intersections.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported HLX airport does not comply with runway hold position sign requirements.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After an uneventful landing on Runway 22 at LGA; I contacted Ground Control. I informed them of our gate and they instructed us to taxi towards our terminal; contact another carrier's 'Ramp Control;' and report back when we had been cleared to our gate. The Captain monitored the Ground Frequency. I had pre-selected both Company and Ramp frequencies on the First Officer's radio. Thinking I was talking to Ramp Control; I said; 'Ramp Control; Company flight number on the ground for Gate XX.' The response was; 'You are cleared to the gate.' I switched to Ground Frequency and informed them we were cleared to the gate. I then checked the Operations Frequency and was surprised that the radio was already selected. Assuming I must have automatically switched after the previous transmission; I attempted to contact Operations; who failed to respond. There then followed some confusing instructions from Ground regarding an unseen aircraft. Our route to our gate was unobstructed so we continued. After arriving at the gate; I heard the other carrier's 'Ramp Control' calling us. I responded; and he told me we had never asked for permission to taxi to the gate. I assured him I had; and then he said that Ground must have cleared us. In retrospect I believe that I spoke to Company Operations; and even though I called them under Ramp Control; they were the ones who cleared us to the gate.




Synopsis: Air Carrier inbound to the gate area at LGA experienced confusion with regard to communications between Ramp Control; Ground Control and Company.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CNO.Tower, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CNO
ATC / advisory: Tower CNO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the Job Training (OJT) was being conducted on local control. Aircraft X was inbound on the VOR approach for a full stop. The VOR approach is off of a VOR and to the right runway. This approach has the pilot fly over the approach end of the left runway since the parallels are staggered and the right runway actually is further. The pilot was lined up for the left and descending when the developmental was notified and the Aircraft was sent around for another approach.The VOR approach is set up for the right runway and its setting pilots up for failure and possibly a wrong surface landing. If their head is in the instruments on an instrument approach; when they hit minimums and look up they will see our longest runway; the left and the PAPI's; not the right which is where they are cleared to land. CNO has a problem with wrong runway landings and having the VOR approach set up for the right runway is only going to have IFR pilots land on the wrong runway. If the VOR approach were to be set up for the left; it would also allow some versatility to TRACON and the operation since it would open up an instrument approach to another runway. As of now; all instrument approaches only go to one runway. There is no other approach to any other runway; even for east flow or the intersecting runway.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported arriving aircraft often line up for the wrong runway in CNO due to the airport design.