elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E D10
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working all the departure positions combined; early morning light traffic; weather in the area and route restrictions in effect. Aircraft X was the last departure not on vectors before Tower assigned vectors. I was on the land line when they checked in coordinating departures with DAL Tower. They departed on a heading for weather and reported altitude leaving. I missed the no altitude assigned being on the land line but expected a climb to 100 as they were on a heading. I turned them east; they were a south gate departure; to get in trail of the other southbound departure I had. The south gate was one route in trail for the weather. I then adjusted their heading to a 070 to give myself a little more space in trail. I went back to other aircraft and when I next looked at Aircraft X they were climbing through 110 right at an arrival level at 110. I turned Aircraft X immediately to a northeast heading; I think a 040; and then came back and asked what altitude they were climbing to. The pilot said FL380. I amended their altitude to 170 and eventually turned them south. Immediately cancel the climb via procedures. Foreign pilots and pilots unfamiliar with any area are apt to climb to a wrong altitude. This is just creating an extremely unsafe occurrence. Even with ATC catching wrong altitude check in or missing them there is still the chance for pilots to climb through the needed or should be assigned altitude. The safer procedure should be to just leave the altitude assignments in ATC's hands with hard altitude assignments. This is only an unsafe operation when control is given to no one.




Synopsis: Reporter states he missed altitude aircraft was climbing to on initial call up.  Reporter assumed aircraft was climbing to one altitude but pilot reported climbing to a higher altitude.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Dash 8-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise at FL250; First Officer's window shattered. We complied with the QRH; descended to 14;000 feet. Slowed to 190 knots and decided to proceed on to our filed destination.


Second narrative: During cruise First Officer's windshield shattered. Followed QRH; informed Operations; and helped manage the situation with ATC; crewmembers; and Operations. As a crew we did decide to declare an emergency in order to have all available resources at our disposal if the need arose.


Synopsis: A DH-8-400 First Officer's windshield shattered at FL250. So the crew completed the QRH; declared an emergency; descended to 14;000 feet and continued to the filed destination.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On takeoff; we rejected after getting a 'Flaps; Flaps' warning around 85 KTS; speed got to around 90 KTS max. Rejected takeoff was uneventful and we notified Tower immediately. We had set flaps 10 for takeoff right after start; did our Before Takeoff Checklist; both saw and verified flaps 10 on our PFD's and both saw a green box before takeoff. Flaps were set for takeoff to the minimum setting as per recent guidance from the company; at flaps 10. While a good idea in theory; as it is much less drag should one lose an engine at or after V1; in my opinion this setting can and did possibly result in this rejected takeoff; through a flap transmitter sending an erroneous signal to the flight control computer and giving a false signal that the flaps were less than flaps 10; the minimum setting. On taxiing clear of the runway after the reject; we spoke with Maintenance over the Sat-Phone and it was agreed we should go back to the gate and have local mechanics check out the situation. Never did we see less than flaps 10 on our PFD's until selected so by us after clearing the runway; although right after the reject; I did see my PFD showing an intermittent and back-and-forth flaps 10 changing to flaps 11 annunciation; very rapidly and short in duration. If this signal was ever less than flaps 10 on takeoff; I suspect that this is what triggered the warning. Turns out this was a repeat maintenance item; and had been written up several times recently. For the subsequent takeoff; we selected flaps 15; as we didn't quite trust the minimum setting any longer. This gave us a cushion from any stray electrons at flaps 10; and in fact gave us an even greater stopping margin. Next takeoff was uneventful.


Second narrative: During takeoff roll got audible warning 'Flaps' at 85 KTS. Rejected takeoff at approximately 90 KTS. Taxied back to blocks for maintenance.


Synopsis: MD11 flight crew experiences a takeoff warning for flaps although the flaps are correctly set at 10 degrees. The takeoff is rejected at 90 KTS and the flight returns to the gate for maintenance.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MRI.Airport, AK
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Tower MRI
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Y was originally told to go to RWY 5 for a straight out departure; but he went to RWY 23. Aircraft X was doing full stop taxi backs on RWY 25. When Aircraft Y was ready for departure; he was told to make a right downwind departure (standard is left due to RWY 7/25 traffic) to keep noise away from the homes south of the airport. Aircraft X was cleared to land RWY 25. I told Aircraft Y to begin his right turn when he was west of RWY 16/34 (as he was heading for another noise sensitive area); and he did so. Then passing the Tower on RWY 25 is Aircraft X powering up as he did a touch and go; not a full stop as instructed. I told Aircraft X to remain low through the intersection (as Aircraft Y was just west of it at approximately 600 AGL) for traffic. I would guess they passed about 300 FT. Aircraft X was told to call the Tower for a possible pilot deviation.After speaking to the pilot of Aircraft X; he knew what he did wrong. His mistake almost caused a mid air. At MRI we have issues with pilots doing what they want - vs. - doing what they are told (i.e. Aircraft Y going to 23 - vs. - 5).  FSDO needs to become more active in pilot education and if need be; pulling certificates. In today's world; I see us; the air traffic controller becoming more of an instructor than ever before at the GA level; as a large portion of GA pilots just do not know what to do; or say. Maybe due to lack of time in the airplane.




Synopsis: Controller reports of NMAC due to aircraft that was supposed to make a full stop elects to make a touch and go coming into close proximity of another aircraft in the pattern.
Date: 201808
Location: 47N.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: The TFR in place at Bedminster; New Jersey places airport 47N within the 30NM ring. This; of course; requires pilots to be on an IFR flight plan or have a VFR flight plan on file; and have a transponder code and communication with ATC. For those of us who operate at this airport; we have been told by ATC that we are unable to depart IFR; unless able to climb in VMC to the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) of 2000 ft. We have been told that the reason for this is that SBJ VOR is the only IFR departure fix that has been flight tested for this airport and SBJ is within the 10NM 'no fly' ring of the TFR. This restriction is causing undue burden on the pilots wishing or needing to depart in IFR conditions from 47N. This restriction is effectively denying access to the flying public from using their own tax-payer-funded public ATC system. With the vagaries of weather reporting; this restriction is potentially encouraging unsafe practices by encouraging pilots to depart in marginal conditions in order to pick up and continue on their IFR flight plan. Anecdotally; I understand that there are other nearby non-towered airports where this same problem exists. The solution to this is to flight test one or more additional departure fixes that lie outside the 10NM TFR ring.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an issue with an overlying TFR at 47N.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: Tower PHX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: There is a lighted billboard just to the right of the extended centerline and abeam the approach end of the runway that is very bright and is a distraction. The sign could cause a severe distraction during a low visibility approach; especially at night.  The sign needs to be relocated so as not to shine in the pilots' eyes while on final approach below 100 FT.

Callback: The Reporter stated that while they were on short final to PHX Runway 7R a large TV style sign changed content and was bright enough to be a distraction. In a low visibility situation it would obscure approach lights below 100-150 FT. The sign should be dimmed or removed so as not to interfer with flight crew ability clearly to see the runway at low altitude.



Synopsis: A pilot approaching PHX Runway 7R commented on a bright TV style commercial billboard whose content changed during a dusk VMC approach; interfered with visual ability and was a distraction because it was brighter than the approach lights.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ABI.TRACON, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I radar identified Aircraft X that was a VFR departure off T23;a satellite airport in my airspace. I issued the IFR clearance and cleared him on course to DWH.  T23 is approximately 18 nm inside my airspace and the aircraft was south east bound on course. I should've pointed him out the ZFW Possum sector; as he skirted their boundary; but I didn't notice until it was too late. I got distracted with some other pop up traffic and conflicts. When I scanned back to check on Aircraft X he was approximately 2 nm inside ZFW Ednas airspace. Ednas is just South of possum where they meet my airspace. I immediately called and handed off Aircraft X and flashed him. The planes are supposed to autoflash to the adjoining sectors; but at certain portions of our airspace they do not autoflash like they are supposed to.    It would be very helpful if the aircraft consistently auto flashed to the next sector like they are supposed to.  When center takes the handoff on the auto flashed aircraft they flash on my scope and this serves as a reminder to make the hand off. I believe this event happened because I became too focused on other traffic and did not scan efficiently.




Synopsis: ABI TRACON Controller describes a situation where an aircraft under their control does not auto handoff and violates another Controller's sector; resulting in an airspace deviation.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The inner pane of the Captain's window cracked. Consulted checklist; made an emergency descent followed by an emergency declaration and landing. Made the decision to land to inspect the extent of the damage and consult POH limitations. Safe and rather uneventful.




Synopsis: King air 200 Captain experiences a cracked windshield at FL250. An emergency descent is initiated followed by a diversion to a suitable airport.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Falcon 900
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were being vectored north of Dallas for our arrival into DAL. We had originally been cleared on the JFRYE2 but had been vectored off by Regional Approach. When we were approximately 20-25NM northeast of the GREGS intersection we were cleared directly to GREGS and cleared to descend via the JFRYE2 arrival. Due to our position and the location of the subsequent fix; MNKEE; the FMS calculated a smart turn north and east of GREGS. As we flew closer to GREGS; we discovered that the smart turn would be greater than 4NM when abeam GREGS. The controller asked us to verify the last clearance; which we did; and we explained the situation. The pilot flying used the heading mode to manually steer the aircraft closer to GREGS using the moving map display. The course to MNKEE was recaptured; and the rest of the arrival was flown without incident.This scenario is a known issue with the Honeywell Epic platform. The manufacturer has instructed operators to reset the LNAV Bank Factor from 7 to 15 to prevent FMS early smart turns. It appears that this setting resets to 7 after base software has been installed because both aircraft I checked had 7 in the LNAV Bank Factor. This is not an item that is called out to be checked in the expanded POWER ON checks in CODDE 2; but I will certainly be adding it to my daily checks.




Synopsis: DA900 Captain reported they deviated from their cleared track when their Honeywell Epic equipped aircraft made a wide 'smart turn' during arrival into DAL.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Navion Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise flight; my airplane's propeller hub lost oil pressure resulting in a max angle blade angle (low RPM) setting; and then I made an unplanned landing at ZZZ. I was on flight following with Approach at the time of the malfunction and informed them that I had 'partial power loss and would be making a landing at ZZZ'. The controller confirmed I was the aircraft only occupant and worked me until I was sure of being able to make the landing; and then handed me off to ZZZ Tower. I was able to make a successful spiraling descent; landing; and then park on the general aviation ramp where I was met by the airport's firetruck to confirm that I was okay. I then called WX Brief to close my flight plan and inform them that I had landed at ZZZ instead of my intended destination; and I requested they confirm that Approach knew I was on the ground safely.




Synopsis: Pilot flying Navion A aircraft reported mechanical failure of propeller governor resulting in low RPM.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: YIP.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D YIP
ATC / advisory: Tower YIP
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were] doing a no flap slip to land; and performed a Go-Around at 200 ft AGL. Climbed up to 700 ft AGL and turned out like on a normal takeoff. On the crosswind to downwind turn noticed the traffic that we were following previously. We had flown right into their path. It is worth noting that the traffic did really wide pattern legs; which probably was factor in the incident. Also we never got an alert from the Tower Controller and we never got an alert on our traffic alert system (TIS). Things that could have prevented this occurrence or to correct the situation: Alert from Tower or on TIS; and after performing the Go-Around climbed out to pattern altitude before turning. Also teaching pilots to keep the pattern in closer would have also helped out this situation.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor Pilot reported a NMAC in the pattern at YIP airport.