elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Y requested to transition SFO Bravo airspace from the north to south at 3;500 feet which would involve crossing the runway departure corridor. The pilot stated it looked like a departure was on takeoff roll and questioned whether or not it was a problem for them. I then noticed the radar target off the departure end and informed the pilot that the departure would be restricted to 3;000 feet. Aircraft X checked in and I believe he said he was climbing to 3;000 feet. I issued traffic to Aircraft X; but don't recall if he said he had it in sight. For informational purpose I told the pilot of Aircraft Y that it is standard procedure that runway departures are restricted to 3;000 feet as a safety measure for transitioning aircraft. The pilot of Aircraft X overheard the conversation and said he was not issued a 3;000 feet restriction. Although I'm not sure; he may have said he stopped at 3;000 feet because of the traffic I issued. There was no TCAS event nor did the conflict alert sound.With the mix of departure procedures and the new airspace procedures in use it is possible the tower did not issue the 3;000 feet restriction via PDC. The new airspace procedures have the restriction built-in. I would recommend; if possible; the 3;000 foot restriction is added to the departures when sent via PDC.




Synopsis: New departure procedures at SFO have a 3;000 foot published restriction for departures. Previous departure procedures are still issued to some aircraft due to aircraft capabilities. The previous departure procedures do not have the 3;000 foot restriction. The Controller had 3;500 foot Class B airspace crossing traffic. The Controller thought departing jet traffic was restricted to 3;000 feet; but it was not because it was still flying the old departure procedure.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was riding jumpseat out of BNA. We had switched to ZME and were climbing out assigned FL230. We switched frequencies and I'm somewhat uncertain what altitude we were assigned but I believe I recall FL340. I do recall the two pilots via the intercom/headsets reading back FL340 and putting it in the FMS.I believe we switched frequencies again and checked on with the next sector. The controller told us to expect higher soon. The pilots were puzzled and got into their flight plan paperwork and saw that the company had requested 260 as a final.Shortly thereafter the TCAS turned yellow and another aircraft went by opposite direction around 3 miles lateral and 600 vertical. Center urgently asked say altitude assigned; First Officer (FO) read back FL340. They asked who assigned it and FO said the previous controller. I confirmed with the crew my recollection of the events and it matched up.I'm unsure if the FO checked on with the next sector and said what altitude they were climbing to. If he didn't it should be required. I may have missed some of this because I could hear the pilots much louder on the intercom/headset than I could hear the frequencies. Also there were a lot of aircraft blocking each other and the center out on this trip.




Synopsis: A BNA Controller; while riding jumpseat hears and confirms with pilots an altitude assignment. Minutes later an aircraft passes with less than standard separation. A working Controller asks the pilot to say altitude and pilot reports altitude. The Controller asks who gave you that altitude and pilot reports that the last Controller did. The flight plan of aircraft was only up to FL260.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We pushed back and taxied out normally to the runway. When we were about five minutes from departure we started the #1 engine. It started normally. As we took the runway to line up and wait; an aircraft behind us reported over the radio that there were flames coming out of the left engine. About 15 seconds later they said it was getting worse and the tower could now see it so we shut down the left engine and cleared the runway. Preliminary reports were that the fire went out when engine was shut down. The tower controller took it upon himself to roll the trucks before I could even think about...which is a good thing. We ran our checklists and briefed the cabin crew and passengers. The CFR personnel showed up to do a visual inspection. They did a visual inspection on foot and reported absolutely no fire. So we finished up checklists and briefing passengers and crew and returned to the gate. CFR followed us to gate as a safety precaution. Anomaly was written up and we went to the hotel.Never during this event did the engine indications show anything other than completely normal stable operation.




Synopsis: While awaiting takeoff clearance the flight crew was advised that flames appeared to be coming from one of the aircraft's engines. As the flight crew accomplished the appropriate emergency checklists; the Tower initiated an emergency vehicle response. After the fire was confirmed to be extinguished the aircraft returned to the gate.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TLH.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C TLH
ATC / advisory: TRACON TLH
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We have an MVA defined northeast of the field (026 feet) for a group of antennas. Aircraft X was just approaching the depicted antennas at 3000 and was given an approach clearance to maintain 3000 until established. I observed Aircraft X pass the antenna below the MVA at 2400; but past the obstruction. The surrounding MVA being 018; I repeated the clearance. Ref: 7110.65 5-5-9. The skill level of pilots in the ATC system is drastically declining. I have saves every week. Examiners need to stop handing out certificates like bubble gum in a pack of baseball cards.




Synopsis: TLH TRACON Controller reported an aircraft descending below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA).
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This was a near identical problem as my previous dozen or so reports. The flight progress strip was flat in a radar bay with zero indication that it would enter the sector non radar. A strip scan caught the mistake and I made needed corrections. There were multiple aircraft on the airway that is 50 miles north and parallel to the Center boundaries. Luckily (again) there was inadvertent separation standards (vertical and longitudinal). Nothing positive. When ATOP's (Advance Technology and Oceanic Procedures) receives a flight plan entering Anchorage Center; Oakland Center ATOP could be programed to immediately send a message to Anchorage Center of a revised altitude at the aircraft's current altitude; creating an update in FDP (Flight Data Processing) that Oakland Center revised the altitude. Use this or any of the other suggestions I or anyone else has made to improve the safety of this operation. The round of crew briefings Anchorage Center leadership decided might mitigate this situation has not from my observations been effective as evidence from conversations I have had with other operational personnel.




Synopsis: Oceanic Center Controller reported they did not receive updates for a flight entering their airspace non-radar.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were conducting a dual training flight in a Cirrus SR-20 aircraft; and with ceilings overcast at 3;000 feet. We filed an IFR flight plan and requested a block altitude with Approach so that the student could experience actual IMC. Approach granted us a block from 4 to 6 thousand feet. We were performing basic instrument flying maneuvers within this block at 5000 feet and were in IMC when we received a traffic alert (same altitude; less than a mile). The Cirrus is equipped with the L3 Skywatch Traffic Advisory System; which means that the other aircraft had to have been equipped with at least a Mode C transponder in order for the system to detect it. The student had been flying but I took controls and banked to the right while we were still in the cloud. As we exited the other side of the cloud we could clearly see a high wing aircraft exactly where Skywatch had indicated. We queried ATC; and the controllers response was that 'someone was probably VFR and had decided to get a little too close to you'; and that he was not talking to anyone in that area at the time. We notified ATC of the flight conditions and had no other conflict. During the incident the other aircraft also properly banked right to avoid us.I have no doubt that had we not banked right inside the cloud the outcome could have been much different. We were operating on an IFR flight plan and well within the limits of our block altitude that had been granted by approach; which means that the other aircraft was also inside our block. I would also like to stress that the other aircraft had to have been equipped with at least a Mode C transponder in order for Skywatch to report it as a target and display its altitude relative to us. Flight conditions were mixed inside the block but I do not think it would have been possible to have been operating within the legal VFR weather minimums.




Synopsis: A Flight Instructor conducting training in IMC reported a near miss with an aircraft not identified or in contact with ATC.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: 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; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Between the AEX VOR and JERNY intersection on the SKNRD4 arrival into IAH; we were given a 'Descend Via' clearance from our cruise altitude of FL430. After we had initiated the descent; we were assigned a heading of 180 for spacing. We inquired as to what our new altitude clearance was; but were again told to 'descend via' the arrival. The controller was saturated; so we did not press the issue that a descend via clearance was invalid now that we were not on the lateral track of the STAR. We opted to reset the altitude preselector to FL240 so as to not go below the crossing restriction over the BEATL intersection (between FL240 and FL280). We were subsequently recleared direct to DOOBI and continued with the descend via clearance.This is another case of controller's not correctly utilizing 'climb via' and 'descend via' clearances.




Synopsis: G280 Captain is cleared to descend via the SKNRD4 to IAH. Once the descent is initiated; ATC issues a heading for spacing. When the crew asks for a new altitude assignment; they are told to descend via the arrival although they are no longer on the arrival.
Date: 201505
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ; Class E ZZZ; Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying as the first officer of Aircraft X being used on contract by the US Military to conduct parachute operations inside of Restricted airspace. We had 14 military free fall jumpers on board and were taking off from a 3;000 feet unimproved landing strip. We had full inboard fuel tanks. Upon rotation; we experienced a power-plant failure of the left engine at approximately 200 feet.  We performed emergency action procedures for a power-plant failure after V1 and attempted to climb to a safe altitude to release jumpers. The aircraft would not climb above 1;000 feet AGL so we diverted to the closest airstrip; ZZZ; which has a 3;200 feet paved runway and was three miles away.  Upon landing; braking action was extremely poor and it was extremely difficult to maintain directional control. On taxi back; we experienced a right brake fire that was most likely caused by a leaking hydraulic line dripping fluid onto hot brakes. Passengers were evacuated on the ramp and fire was extinguished with on site fire fighting equipment by myself and the captain. The most likely cause of the engine failure was a Flight Control Unit (FCU) failure and the brake fire because of heavy braking with poorly maintained brakes and a shorter than desired runway available. In a post event debrief; the captain and I reworked the numbers on our useful load for conditions and determined that we had not added enough safety factor into our runway analysis. If we had properly accounted for density altitudes and current conditions; the aircraft would have had better single engine performance and we could have diverted to a longer and more appropriate runway for the situation. There were no injuries to any personnel. We did not declare an emergency during the event because of the the speed at which events happened and the attention needed to safely fly the airplane to landing.




Synopsis: Twin engine; high wing turboprop First Officer reported losing an engine shortly after takeoff. Flight diverted to a nearby airfield where a safe landing was made.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: As the Galley Flight Attendant; I was in the aft galley with other Main Cabin Flight Attendants setting up for breakfast service when we hit severe turbulence. The plane fell about three times. Both beverage carts fell over as well as inserts; garbage and other galley items. Debris came down on us. We had a full flight with no passenger seats available. There were 6 flight attendants in the galley. We only have 5 available jumpseats in the galley. That meant one flight attendant did not have a seat to go to and thus was thrown around throughout this ordeal. This is totally unacceptable. There should be enough seats in a cabin for all the flight attendants working that cabin or else an available passenger seat for us. I ended up with bruised rib and thigh. We were told by pilots that it was clear air turbulence. Unaware if any passengers ended up declaring any injuries. None did at the time of landing.




Synopsis: B777 Flight Attendant reported being injured when the aircraft encountered unexpected turbulence and there were not enough jump seats in the aft galley for Flight Attendants to occupy.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 300
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Other Maintenance
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: June 2015. [Aircraft X]; an EMB-505 (Phenom-300) aircraft was due for its 15-day Hydraulic Accumulator Check. Per AOM 5.21; we performed it; twice; and it failed both times. [Check that] the drop rate does not increase to approximately 1;000 psi/sec (above 1;200 psi); but continues decreasing at a rate of approximately 100 psi/sec. We completed AOM 5.21 and noted the accumulator fluid level was overfilled (Yellow range).Company Maintenance Controller was contacted and he coordinated for an Embraer ZZZ Maintenance Technician to proceed to the aircraft. We conducted this third test with the Technician in the left seat. The test failed again. The Embraer maintenance Technician discussed with three other Embraer maintenance technicians and we all agreed to perform the check on another EMB-505; Aircraft Y. The test was completed by Embraer and upon completion it failed and [the accumulator fluid] was overfilled. We completed Company [Logbook] Maintenance form with the discrepancy for Aircraft X.The following day; upon reviewing Aircraft X's company Logbook it was determined that a Technician fraudulently completed the Corrective Action section of the Logbook for the Hydraulic Accumulator Check. We completed the Hydraulic Accumulator Check; per AOM 5.21; and it passed with the accumulator fluid level in the middle of the Green band. Technician's Corrective Action states that they did not drain the fluid level. However; this is blatantly false as I have provided a picture of it overfilled (Yellow) and it was in the middle of the Green band the next day. Not only is this an ethical conundrum; it has serious safety ramifications. As a human; professional pilot and FAA Mechanic with Airframe and Powerplant ratings I am appalled by the actions of Embraer.




Synopsis: A Captain challenges the accuracy of a Maintenance Corrective Action sign-off in a logbook after several Hydraulic Accumulator Checks had failed on one of their EMB-505 (Phenom-300) aircraft due to overservicing of the hydraulic accumulator. No reference to hydraulic fluid being drained to correct the discrepancy.