elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202006
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cruising at FL430 in VMC conditions. We suddenly lost all electrical power and cabin pressurization. The memory item is to don oxygen masks and perform an immediate descent. We began accomplishing both of these. With a loss of electrical power; the Phenom starts Dutch Rolling right away. As the Pilot Flying; my attention was primarily focused on getting the aircraft down and controlling the roll. I had been unable to turn on my mask mic right away; and assumed the Non-Flying Pilot was communicating with ATC. It turns out that he was unable to speak to ATC. I think we probably descended to about 25;000 feet before either of us talked to ATC. Once I made contact with Center; we requested priority handling and received excellent assistance.Once I had the aircraft under control and we were at a lower altitude; the SIC informed me that he could not communicate. At that point I gave him the flight controls while I got my mask mic working and I contacted ATC. The loss of electrical power prevented the non-flying pilot to communicate outside the aircraft. My focus was on controlling the dutch roll while descending at up to 8000 FPM. As my mask mic was not yet working; I was unaware that the SIC had not spoken to ATC.ATC responded right away; gave us clearance to 10;000 feet and assisted us getting on the ground.We (Company) should probably practice this event; or at least discuss it during recurrent. It was very confusing; and we were quite task saturated.




Synopsis: EMB-505 flight crew reported total loss of electrical power caused multiple systems failures resulting in a diversion and landing.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 100
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While conducting training operations; as the instructor; in an EMB-500 type aircraft my student had just landed the aircraft and began the rollout on centerline. Upon applying the brakes the said aircraft immediately pulled hard to the left. All attempts to prevent the aircraft from departing the runway were unsuccessful. The aircraft departed the left side of the runway and the left tire struck a runway marker thus breaking it. The aircraft was subsequently brought under control by myself and taxied back onto the runway and then taxied via the remaining runway and taxiways to the ramp for inspection. Inspection of the aircraft revealed a small mark on the left tire but no other damage to the aircraft was visible. Embraer was called to do a full inspection of the aircraft as well as a system download to determine the cause. It was determined by Embraer that a failure of the Brake Control Module was the cause of the rapid and abrupt pulling of the aircraft to the left and said system was repaired by Embraer through replacement parts. The final inspection of the aircraft by Embraer employees revealed no other damage to the aircraft or its systems. No passengers or crew were injured during this event.




Synopsis: Phenom 100 Flight Instructor reported that upon runway roll out; the left brake locked up causing the jet to swerve and leave the hard surface of the runway.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cruising at 2;000 feet and started gradually losing power. I [saw an] airport about 7 miles west of where we were. My instructor started heading for the airport; but he didn't think I could make it; so he saw a nice field next to him and made a successful off airport landing. There was no damage to the aircraft and no injury to occupants.


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


Synopsis: Pilot and instructor reported losing power in their C150 and having to make an off airport landing. Cause of lower loss unknown.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X checked on frequency and a few minutes later asked if SLC center told us about a warning light. I advised him they didn't and asked what it was about. The pilot responded with there was a warning light about their RVSM status but all of his altimeters were working and showing him level at FL390. This answer led me to believe that he was still able to be in RVSM airspace and I advised him if any issues with any altimeters arose he would not be allowed to continue flight in RVSM airspace. While he was in the sector his flight path crossed another aircraft who was less than 5 miles and 1000 feet. It was determined later that Aircraft X was not capable of RVSM and should have been descended into non-RVSM airspace.More of an understanding of what was going on with the aircraft at the time. If I would have understood that he needed to be descended at the time of him advising us then I would have done so; instead I treated it as just an advisory.




Synopsis: ZDV Controller reports of an aircraft that should not have been in RVSM airspace due to an equipment problem related to the altimeters on the aircraft.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While I was acting as pilot flying we were issued 'direct LGA' at some point during the flight. This put us nearly; on a 040 heading towards the field and we were at 4;000 FT MSL. We were approaching the airport and came within; around 5-7 miles from our clearance limit (LGA) when the Captain (Pilot Monitoring) prompted NY approach to give us instructions for after we reached LGA. We were hastily given a heading and a new frequency to call. My interpretation of the heading given was 360 degrees; so I made the turn. After contacting the next frequency; the person told us we had made a wrong turn and gave us another series of headings to get us in line for the intended runway (31). Upon looking back at the event; it is possible that the previous controller gave us a 060 heading (which I mistook for 360). The 060 would have had us crossing the field still; but it would have been towards the intended approach not away from it. In the haste of the instructions given; we both questioned that the turn did not seem right but we were already with the next controller; who notified us. The event did not seem to bother the controller; he notified us then just gave us headings to get back into sequence.




Synopsis: First Officer reported receiving confusing heading assignments from separate controllers while being vectored for approach and landing at LaGuardia airport.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Military Transport
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working D7 when Aircraft X checked in on frequency at FL340. The R7 controller issued this aircraft a beacon code of [XXXX] then proceeded to start a track (as per HCF facility directive) for Aircraft X over FAPIS. A minute or two later Aircraft Y checked in on frequency at FL360 and the R7 controller did the same thing for this aircraft; beacon code and started a track. The track for Aircraft X showed a mode C altitude of FL360. This occurred for a couple of sweeps and I proceeded to bring this erroneous altitude readout to the attention to the R7 controller. The R7 controller then proceeded to reposition the track for Aircraft X off of the target it was tracking (Aircraft Y). I have noticed this happening several times before. This is totally unacceptable to have data for one aircraft being started on a target of another aircraft. Before this track starting procedure was implemented; this had never happened before. The procedure requiring controllers to start tracks on no visible targets must be discontinued. Auto acquisition must be reemployed as a way of radar identification to ensure the data from the aircraft's transponder matches the data in the tab list. Starting a track does nothing to ensure IFR separation is maintained and only causes potential erroneous data being displayed as demonstrated above as well as unnecessarily increasing controller workload on the busiest sector in HCF.




Synopsis: HCF Controller reports of a new procedure where they tag up aircraft; not related to a primary radar return. Data tags swap at times causing confusion about the aircraft's position.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Other Fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had finished an all night flight [redeye] back to base early this morning with poor; at best; rest at the west coast departure city. [I] drove home 2.5 hours after the all night flying. Tried to rest with very broken sleep then was disturbed 4.5 hours later by crew scheduling to be assigned a pre-dawn short call. [I] could not get back to a rest state until six hours after to no real avail then received a call from scheduling assigning me an early morning flight. There would be no SAFE way to be rested to perform the duties asked of me without placing myself; my crew; the aircraft and the flying public in harms way. It is truly tragic that the company fails to take the initiative to thwart this kind of fatigue problem! A suggestion would be to prohibit any assignment before a minimum of a 24 hour adjustment/rest period is concluded after an all nighter for the safety of the entire operation and traveling public.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reports being unable to get proper rest after returning from an all night flight due to calls from Crew Scheduling.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When equipment has changed from [Aircraft type 1] to [Aircraft type 2]; since FA4 was under the probationary period; as an FA1; initiated to ensure FA4 understands station assignment and other responsibilities. She said; 'I know this airplane.'  However; there are a few issues noted.  One; no pre-flight check has accomplished but sat down the last row and using a personal cellphone.  FAR 121.309 violation.  Remind herself to do it.  I checked instead.  Second; during all call; she did not know how to use the interphone. Had to ask FA2 to verify with FA4; the customer talked to me it was a concern if she knows what she is doing when I walked-thru the aisle during flight.  Third; when a customer had an issue with FA4 during boarding; FA4 told us the customer said to her 'Damn ass;' we solved a problem with MOD and the agent on the ground to make sure FA4 is ok.  However; after this event; FA4 was on her cellphone; texting on her jump seat while still boarding when I approached her.  Even though I told her not to do so but she continued.  Fourth; during the flight; no 15mins walk-thru; compliance checked when the seatbelt sign is illuminated; no response to customers call light. Those are accomplished but FA1; FA2; FA3 were the only crew have performed the in flight duty. Lastly; this is going to be other report that she was in sleep on the jump seat during the flight; complained about how tired she is.  Reported by FA2; FA3 was offering coffee or something to help; but she refused since she does not drink coffee.  Then shut the curtain.  The curtain opened by FA2 to accommodate other customers.  The last leg; I initiated crew briefing for the special information for our customers; flight-time; a reminder of pre-flight check emergency equipment check; in flight duties; compliance check; etc. FA4 has responded to FA2 FA1 is too strict.  When FA4 was based in New York; those never cared and she told FA2 that she does not need to take it seriously.  FA2; FA3 reported to me that this is not good.  We all do not feel safe to fly with her.  FA4 has also verbalized the eccentric phrase that she wants to create disease to kill people who ruin the environment.  I feel comfortable neither safe to work with this FA4.  FA2 and FA3 had the same sense as me.  I also advise my supervisor; as well.




Synopsis: FA1 reported FA4 did not accomplish preflight checks IAW FAR's and was uncooperative during flight.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CHO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E CHO
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the approach into CHO RWY 03 ATC cleared us to 3000 ft. Once abeam the airport ATC cleared us for the visual and we turned towards the FAP and started the descent to 2600 ft which was the FAP ALT. Pattern alt was 2200 ft. We could not see any terrain that would cause an issue to our approach and we started down to 2600 ft. Between 2700 and 2800 ft we got an EGPWS terrain terrain pull up. We disconnected the auto pilot and set max thrust and started a climb. We notified ATC and once we were sure we were clear the terrain we continued back to the approach course at a higher altitude and landed with no further incident. ATC is bringing us down to 3000 ft and is bringing us too close to a ridge that is 1800 ft high. With no wind correction it is easy to drift over the ridge and not realize it. ATC is then clearing us for a visual approach from a wide left downwind and tower is also requesting to keep the pattern tight. With it being dark out we could not see any terrain that would be a factor so we accepted it not knowing we were directly over the ridge. ATC should not be clearing visual approaches from the east or bringing us down that low for a vectoring altitude. Even if we were to have stayed at 3000 ft; the MSA was 4900 ft; this would have caused a TOO LOW GEAR warning due to the proximity of the ridge. ATC should either keep us higher and bring us out away from the ridge before clearing us for a visual or the company needs to send out alerts to the crews about this airport since it is surrounded by terrain close to the airport.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a terrain warning on a night visual approach to CHO runway 03.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower BUR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for takeoff. After power set; ATC stated '(our call sign); exit the runway and contact Ground.' Captain and I both thought it was an error in call sign for another company aircraft that just landed. ATC then again stated the above in a desperate tone. We saw another carrier approaching the runway and elected to reject. After we stopped ATC apologized for the confusion and messed up the call signs.


Second narrative: After clearing us for takeoff; during takeoff roll on Runway 15; BUR Tower transmitted '(our call sign) exit runway; left on Delta' twice. The first time he said it; we thought it was probably an error as another company aircraft had just landed on Runway 8 and cleared the intersection of the runways. The second time he said it we were at 96 knots and elected to reject the takeoff to be on the safe side. I made a PA telling the passengers and flight attendants to remain seated; and that our takeoff clearance had been cancelled. After stopping on the runway; the Tower Controller sounded confused that we had rejected the takeoff. He said he was trying to contact the other aircraft. We ran the QRH and checked brake cooling; which recommended 18 minutes cooling time. Our fuel status was ok to continue without returning to gate. Ground Control did apologize to us on the subsequent taxi out to the runway. The rest of the flight was uneventful.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reports a confusing clearance from BUR Tower during takeoff from Runway 15. The Tower had gotten their callsign confused with an aircraft that had just landed and the second transmission to clear on Delta was made with urgency and the crew elected to reject.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we were backing up; passenger in 30D informed us that the lavatory had a very strong burning plastic smell. We confirmed it; and the Captain returned to gate. The #3 then started vomiting in the first class lavatory. The #4 and I (#2) felt light headed and nauseous. Passenger deplaned; and airplane was taken out of service. #3 went to the ER.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported fumes in cabin during pushback from gate. Additionally; cabin crew reported physiological symptoms.