elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 9
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Initial test flight of new rebuilt engine in this airplane. I was supposed to do one trip around the traffic pattern then taxi back to maintenance for the mechanic to check for leaks etc. Taxi to active run-up and pre takeoff checks were normal with good oil temperature and pressure and magneto checks were smooth and were within tolerances. Cleared for takeoff and right closed traffic. Full power check of all instruments were normal (oil temperature in green arc; oil pressure mid-range of green arc; and 2300 RPM) before brake release. Acceleration in ground run felt good and liftoff and initial climb were normal. At about 300 FT AGL (on departure leg) the engine all of a sudden started to lose power and the RPM dropped to 1800 with some vibration coming from the engine. I told the Tower I was having engine trouble and requested immediate landing clearance as I turned cross wind to downwind. The tower cleared me to land on [departing] runway; but I requested [landing on opposite direction] runway. Runway is approximately 5000 FT long and since I was at this time only about 400 FT AGL and abeam the [opposite direction] runway numbers it was the closest runway. They cleared me to land on [the opposite direction] runway. I did not declare an emergency and no priority was given to me. I made a normal landing and taxied to the maintenance tie down.




Synopsis: While conducting a test flight following engine installation; the pilot of a C172 experienced a loss of power and vibration from the engine at 300 feet above ground level. He was able to maneuver and land successfully on the opposite direction runway.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Training flight flying southbound along the beach at 3;500 straight and level. Started descending and right when we started descending a Piper aircraft climbed above us and missed us by 100-200 ft. Turned on my [software] after to get the traffic ADS-B on my iPad afterwards and found the tail number of the other aircraft involved to be Aircraft Y.




Synopsis: C172 Pilot reported taking evasive action to avoid another aircraft.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a heading for the Visual Approach descending to 5000 feet. Aircraft Y; a jump aircraft; called up for VFR flight following for his jump operations. I radar identified Aircraft Y; reconfirmed his requested altitude and issued traffic to both him and Aircraft X. I also turned Aircraft X 10 degrees left to avoid Aircraft Y's spiraling climb. Aircraft X said he had Aircraft Y on TCAS and was looking. Less than a minute later the Collision Alert went off. I did not issue the 'Traffic Alert' phraseology because turning him was more important; which I did; to a further west heading of 310 degrees. Within 20 seconds after that Aircraft X informed me he was in a TCAS climb. Closest point was approximately 1.5 miles and 800 feet; with Aircraft X turned northwest bound to avoid Aircraft Y. There were no jump operations in progress at the time. Aircraft Y was in his initial climb of the day to start jump operations. I am comfortable with the fact I took positive action to avoid a collision by issuing Aircraft X his vectors to avoid. Furthermore; because of so little time transpiring between Aircraft Y's initial call and Aircraft X's TCAS I feel I used good control judgment and did everything I could in this situation. If Aircraft Y called prior to departing I would have changed Aircraft X's heading to avoid the airport altogether; thereby avoiding the TCAS. We should look at changing the LOA to institute this. A 'heads up' would allow us to prepare and adjust routes accordingly. This is going to continue be a problem; like it always has; with his jump zone being in the Runway 28 arrival path from the south.




Synopsis: P80 TRACON Controller reported an IFR arrival had to respond to a TCAS alert with a VFR parachute jump aircraft even though the Controller had attempted to vector the aircraft away.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: On arrival into EWR; on the FLOSI3 arrival; we were cleared directly to SHAFF shortly after NELIE and cleared to descend to 7;000 feet (after a previous clearance to cross CRANK at 7;000 feet; so we were on a 'path' (not VNAV path) to be abeam CRANK at about 7000 feet). Approximately overhead KSWF; my iPad page changed from the FLOSI3 to the taxi chart for Stewart; uncommanded. All of the 'swiping' in the world did not bring the appropriate page back; so I had to reselect EWR on the upper left and then reselect the FLOSI3 arrival. Fortunately; it was VMC and I had the paper charts open to the EWR section beside me; so there was no pilot error. However; of the 3 iPads in use at that time; only one (mine) auto selected SWF (our alternate); so either our EFB is 33% reliable or 67% reliable. The iPad is a great tool but it needs to be much more reliable before trusting the safety of our airline and passengers to it. I could probably write a [report] a month for an iPad glitch that I shrug my shoulders over. Sometime this summer; my iPad froze for most of my flight to the west coast because it started some auto update when it sensed the aircraft internet which was intermittent enough to prevent the update from being completed.I should have written a [report] on that; but basically forgot due to thunderstorms and other issues demanding my attention. Other pilots have had experience with various glitches and the one thing that the iPad IS doing; is creating a 'normalization of deviance' for how reliable it needs to be.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported becoming distracted on approach when the EFB automatically rolled to the alternate airport taxi chart.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working LC1 at night and we had low ceilings.  It was about BKN006 and we were protecting for the ILS critical area.  Aircraft X was cleared to land on about a 7 mile final and I put Aircraft Y in position.  I then noticed that Aircraft X was starting to drift north of course on the ILS approach.  He was about a quarter mile north of course; but still paralleling the ILS approach course.  I gave him about half a mile to see if he would correct his course.  He did not; so I told him he appeared north of course; and to verify correcting.  The pilot said yeah we're correcting now; and something about there being a momentary outage.  He asked if there was someone in the way of the signal.  I said that Aircraft Y was going into position. By the time the conversation was over; Aircraft X corrected course and it seemed the signal was normal.  The problem here is that our runway was shortened due to RSA work and the landing threshold was moved.  The ILS course was also moved to reflect the new end of the runway; but Management never provided us information about where the new instrument shacks were on the airport and where the critical areas were.  The only maps we have to reference are for when the runway used to be full length.  So when we have to protect the critical area due to low ceilings; no one has any idea where the critical areas are and we have no map to reference.I believe that when the big Aircraft Y taxied into position on the runway; he must have went right through the critical area and since he was so slow in doing so; must have blocked the signal.  Luckily Aircraft X was still far enough out on final that the pilot was able to correct and there wasn't a go around with two aircraft up in the clouds where no one can see them.We need to know where the new instrument shacks are and where the ILS critical areas are.  Vehicles call us all the time asking to cross the approach on the access road; but we don't truly know if the access road goes into any ILS critical areas either.




Synopsis: OAK Tower Controller describes situation with an aircraft on final that loses ILS signal due to the Controller taxiing a heavy aircraft into position.  Facility has not provided controllers with critical areas to protect.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Aircraft: Falcon 50
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There are 2 problems with the situation. 1st BED tower is required to call and release aircraft within 3 minutes of the control departure time. Bedford tower called to request release on 2 aircraft with EDCT's; which were more than 10 minutes in the future. There's no way to validate the actual departure time of the aircraft if there's a 10 minute window in which they have release authority. This gave them a 13 minute window to depart the aircraft; the LOA says 3 minutes.The 2nd and more disturbing problem is that the aircraft and question came off on the wrong Beacon code. Hanscom Tower appeared to try to change the Beacon code. In doing such Bedford Tower delayed the transfer of communication of the IFR aircraft. The Departure area allows the Tower to assign a heading towards an MVA which was higher than the assigned altitude. Without a way to communicate with the aircraft I had no chance to stop the aircraft from entering the lower in MVA. The Tower is not an IFR facility. They are not trained to avoid MVA areas. They should not be able to assign IFR aircraft a vector which points them at a lower MVA within 8 miles of the airport.The LOA is flawed and dangerous bases upon the VFR towers lack of training.




Synopsis: A90 TRACON Controller reported flaws within the LOA with VFR Towers in the area.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After pushback; we noticed restricted articles in the forward cargo. None of us had seen a NOTOC; so I called Ops. Turns out; it was given to the Relief Pilot who was new on the B777. On top was our water service slip; so he thought it was that. When I looked at the NOTOC it said Flammable Liquids. Under the UN number was XXXX. External Combustion Engine. What concerned us was Flammable Liquids. I called Dispatch and got Load Control involved but the Flammable Liquid part was never resolved as to what and how much it was. We returned to the gate and had the items removed. This event occurred because the NOTOC was very vague in its description. It did not have the shippers name; only and international emergency number. Yet in the FOM; [it] states that Flammable Liquids are permissible; but that's it. It does not describe what Flammable Liquids constitute or how much you can carry. FOM Prefight Dangerous goods limitations states; 'the Cargo Department is responsible for ensuring cargo dangerous good weight; quantity and distribution limits are complied with. Nowhere on the NOTOC was the flammable liquids quantity or weight was listed. Shippers of Dangerous goods need to have more detailed description in cases like this.




Synopsis: B777-300 Captain reported Flammable Liquids loaded in cargo for transport with incomplete information on required documents.
Date: 201301
Location: SBBS.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Center SBBS
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Thirty seconds of clear air turbulence; possible wake from crossing traffic; seat belt sign on; no warning from radar or ATC/other aircraft. Flight attendant injured her head in fall; she then treated bump with ice and Advil. Also [two other] flight attendants received bruises from being tossed by turbulence. All 3 flight attendants reported to [medical] clinic after landing and clearing Customs on their own.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported minor flight attendant injuries resulted from a wake vortex encounter in cruise flight at FL320.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Gear Up Lock
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: During Post Maintenance Checklist Technician found Left-Hand MLG Uplock Hook with worn bushing. This is the third time in a month we have seen this issue. I recalled when we did the Phase 1-4 inspections; [we did] a specific task to inspect the uplocks. I checked the Maintenance Manual and found Task XXXX001 Uplock Detailed Inspection is to be performed every 300-hours. I performed a search in [our] Maintenance/Inventory Tracking Program and the Approved Aircraft Inspection Program (AAIP) and cannot find the task anywhere. It is my belief that since we have been doing the Phase-A and Phase-B Inspections that this task has been overlooked.Recommend that Task Card XXXX001 Uplock Detailed Inspection needs to be incorporated into some kind of scheduled maintenance event.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician reported finding a third Cessna CE-560XLS aircraft in a month with Main Landing Gear Uplock Hook bushings worn during their Post Maintenance Checklist inspections. Technician believed that since they have migrated from doing Phase 1-4 Inspections to performing Phase-A and Phase-B Inspections; the Uplock Detailed Inspection Task has been overlooked.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were flying a Part 91 corporate trip to EMT. We had begun our descent and were leveling at 7000. Last assigned routing was LHS Direct DARTS. We requested the GPS B approach into EMT. We were switched to a new SoCal approach frequency. He gave us a new routing that we had not filed or expected. We had the airport in sight; so instead of accepting the clearance. We selected to cancel IFR and proceed VFR with flight following. The controller acknowledged our cancellation and said 'proceed with pilot discretion'. At this point we both thought he said 'descend pilot discretion'. So we descended for our visual approach in to EMT. We also turned direct to the airport. We passed north of DARTS intersection by about 2 miles. About 1 minute into the descent the controller asked what our altitude was. We said 5;500 descending to 3;500. His tone was not approving and we became confused about the status of clearance. The controller stated that our attempts to make a clarification were garbled. We attempted again; with the same results. In our third attempt; we squawked 1200 and said we said were cancelling and proceeding VFR.It was unclear to us if he had accepted our cancellation of the IFR clearance. Or that he understood we would; in the near future (i.e. arrival at DARTS intersection) be cancelling.In hind sight; we would have been clearer if; on initial contact we had expressed our desire to cancel and proceed VFR. I think the intermediary step of 'VFR with flight following' confused everyone.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: A corporate jet flight crew on approach to EMT were confused by a SCT Controller's disapproval of their descent for the airport after they cancelled IFR and began a visual approach at night.