elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution Busbar
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the climb out; received a Master Caution light and associated caution lights; R AC Bus; R TRU; R Stall Warn.  We had just entered the bottom of the cloud layer so asked ATC to descend to get out of the icing conditions.  We were approved to descend and ran the R AC Bus Checklist.  On completion; asked ATC to return.  Vectors were given for our return and flight returned uneventfully.




Synopsis: DHC8-100 crew received a Master Caution light and associated caution lights for; R AC Bus; R TRU; R Stall Warning.  The right AC Bus emergency checklist was complied with and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 2
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C172 was in VFR conditions approximately 5-6 NM northwest of the airport when the field went IFR. I advised him the field was IFR and asked his intentions. He stated he wanted to come in for landing. I told him the field visibility was 2 miles and ceiling 700 FT broken and again asked his intentions. He said he wanted to land and he had a GPS he could use. I told him I couldn't authorize him to come in VFR. He also asked if I had him on RADAR. I told him I did and his position. I told him to maintain VFR and remain clear of Class C airspace. He said he couldn't maintain VFR. I told him Special VFR was available but he did not know what that was. Given that information; in my best judgment I decided to declare an emergency for him. I issued a heading of 180 with the intent to bring him towards the airport. I did not want to issue any instructions that would cause him to become spatially disoriented. Once he was about a mile offshore I told him of his position and asked if he had the shoreline in sight and he did. I told him to follow the shoreline to either Runway 20 or 23. I told him we turned on the runway lights to maximum intensity and asked if he could see either runway. Once he had the runways in sight; I cleared him to land on either Runway 20 or 23. He landed safely without incident. I recognize I should not have solicited Special VFR and should have issued a suggested heading instead of an assigned heading. Although the FLM advised me to issue the MOCA I did not because I did not want the pilot to think he had to climb and potentially become disoriented. I used my best judgment to help the pilot get to the airport as safely as I could. Brushing up on the 7110.65 prior to taking position on a day when the weather is questionable.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described an ATC declared emergency event when a VFR aircraft encountered IMC conditions; was unfamiliar with SVFR procedures and required controller assistance to locate the airport.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was practicing touch and goes with a PA28 ahead of me doing the same detail. After the second touch and go the Controller told me that I was turning final too far away from the runway; I told him that I was just maintaining a safe distance with the preceding aircraft and he replied saying that my separation with the other airplane was too much; that I should have been turning base sooner; and that is what I did afterward; but obviously did not work; I ended up going around as I was too close to the PA28 on final. As I did not feel safe; requested a full stop landing and had a conversation with the controller afterwards. He tried to convince me on the phone that I should fly my airplane slower when following a Piper Warrior on final; but seemed not to understand that if I maintain the same airspeed as a C152 or PA28 I would be flying my airplane against the Pilot Operating Handbook and probably have control issues. Another fact that stated was that if I am turning base with a tailwind component; I should also reduce my airspeed; probably not being aware of that lift depends on True Air Speed (TAS) and not on Ground Speed (GS). It is obvious for me that this ATC in particular has very little understanding of basic airplane aerodynamics and could result in a safety issue.




Synopsis: A PA44 conducting practice pattern maneuvers was instructed by ATC to reduce the spacing between himself and preceding traffic that resulted in a required go around; the reporter questioning ATC's knowledge of aircraft performance characteristics.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting a stage check for my student and we were practicing engine out approaches. On the first attempt a slip was attempted but the nose was too high and the airspeed dropped dangerously low. I took over and attempted to initiate a go around but the aircraft landed on all 3 gear to bounce sharply. I proceeded back to our base and the student and I attempted to get his power off approaches cleaned up and we did multiple touch and goes. After several landings we decided to end the lesson but I noticed that the left brake lost all authority when trying to stop. I took over and prevented a [runway] excursion and tried to slow down in a controlled manner. When I tried to exit [the] taxiway the wind pushed my tail around faster than expected and the plane skidded to a stop just before the hold short line with the nose gear and left main in the grass and snow. No damage to the plane or taxiway lights occurred. No injuries occurred.




Synopsis: DA40 Instructor Pilot reported loss of directional control during landing roll.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On final approach and configuring for a 30 degree flap landing we were slowing with flaps 25 when I called for flaps 30 and 'Before Landing Checklist'. The First Officer moved the flap handle from 25 to 30 but the indicator stayed at 25. All other flap indications were normal. We quickly confirmed the flaps 30 position on the flap handle and tried 15 and 40 positions to fix/confirm the problem. We had a Company pilot in the jump seat and handed him the QRH and he started the 'FLAPS; TRAILING EDGE: SYMMETRICAL NON-NORMAL/NO FLAPS' Checklist. We were discussing a go-around when we got the warning; 'TOO LOW FLAPS' and executed a normal go-around. Tower was informed of the go-around but we did not declare an emergency nor did we receive traffic priority as we did a box pattern back to the landing runway. During the subsequent pattern and QRH review we realized we had moved the flap handle out of the 25 position when the QRH states; 'Flap Position ... Do Not Change'. We returned the flap handle to the 25 position; completed the QRH actions; and landed without further problems. We made a logbook entry; contacted Maintenance; they corrected the flap issue; and the aircraft was returned to service.Things happen pretty quickly during the landing phase and I was unaware that this flap problem states that the flap handle NOT be changed. There is not time to complete the QRH while on short final. I will review the QRH again to see if there are any more landing issues that have steps in them that need to be done/not done prior to the go-around and then have time to complete the QRH.


Second narrative: [No substantive additional information was gleaned from the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: When the flaps refused to extend to the selected landing position as they were configuring for landing; the flight crew of a B737-700 initiated a go around and; in violation of the associated abnormal checklist; inadvertently operated the flap handle in response to the go around commands proper for an aircraft with properly responding flaps. They reconfigured the handle to conform to the position of the flaps and made an uneventful landing.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Bell Helicopter 407
Operator: Air Taxi
Mission: Ambulance
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [We] received aircraft from another [Aircraft Operator] company and had a Vinyl Wrap installed in [Aircraft Operator Name] paint scheme/colors instead of it getting painted. My involvement in this acceptance inspection/repair of [the aircraft] was to assist with a structural repair on the aft RH fuselage skin at an estimated FS [Number]. I removed the Vinyl wrap in the repair area to perform/install approved repair by [Company Name] Product Support Engineering.Our FAA Certification Management Team (CMT) cannot say that it is a violation of the regulations to have vinyl wrap on an aircraft; but also can't say it's not either. My upper management in [Aircraft Operator Name] decided to remove all the Vinyl Wrap on [the aircraft] and have all mechanics associated with the inspection/repair of [the aircraft] to submit a NASA report.




Synopsis: Maintenance reported they removed vinyl wrap to accomplish fuselage skin repair.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT; Tower SJC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X received his clearance via PDC from me as I was working clearance.  I accidentally pressed the down arrow one too many times while I was sending his clearance; and the pilot received the clearance 'Climb via the SID; except maintain 12;000' as opposed to what he was supposed to receive; 'Climb via SID except maintain 5;000.'  Once cleared for takeoff; he climbed as per the clearance that he received.  The pilot checked on to Norcal departure saying he was climbing to 12;000 as opposed to 5;000; but the controller didn't catch it and the aircraft deviated into another sector's airspace.  'Climb via the SID' in the PDC clearances that we send out should be changed to 'Climb via (the actual name of the SID); ex; 'Climb via the Loupe2 departure; except maintain 5000.'  This gives and extra layer of redundancy; and if the Pilot sees that his route says the Loupe2; but he is cleared to climb via a different departure procedure; then something is wrong and questions would be raised.  This would also act as a double check for the controller; as he or she now has to select not only the altitude; but the correct and matching departure procedure.  Right now; the difference between receiving the correct altitude and receiving the incorrect altitude such as what happened in this case is the matter of one accidental button touch; and forcing the controller to add in the name of the departure procedure would help mitigate any errors.




Synopsis: SJC Controller working CD/FD issues the wrong altitude to an aircraft via PDC.  NCT Controller expects aircraft to climb to 5;000; but aircraft is climbing to 12;000 and deviates into another controller's airspace.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on final approximately 1;600 feet MSL/4.0 NM from the airport; I pointed out what at first appeared to be a black balloon rapidly climbing and approaching us. The object flew above us; so no evasive action was required. As we got closer to the object; I realized it was not a balloon; but a large sized; black in color; remote controlled drone. I could see the angular shape of the frame. It was approximately 200 feet above us on final. We were on the visual approach; using the RNAV approach for guidance. We reported the sighting to tower; and when on the ground; clarified the position with ground control to pass it along to other aircraft. As with lasers; drones need to be regulated strictly; swiftly and quickly. Unfortunately; it will take a fatal accident to change the view of how deadly drones can be to any aircraft; especially passenger carrying aircraft. It is clear to me that current regulations in place are not strong enough to prevent people from flying drones. Something needs to change before there is a loss of life.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported a close UAS encounter at 1;600 feet on a four mile final to Runway 27 at SAN.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
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: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on descent from 3;500 feet; preparing to land at ZZZ. Was on CTAF freq; announced intentions; location; etc. Another aircraft was leaving the area in the direction I was flying in from; so I was very carefully scanning the sky in the direction of the airport; dedicating most of my scan time on that area (my 9-12 o'clock); since i knew someone from there was headed at the precise location I was at.Looked down at my checklist (on iPad) and saw it was on the wrong page. Flipped it to the right page. This took approx 10 sec. When i looked back up; a plane was crossing ahead of me; right to left; same altitude; climbing; approx 300 feet away. Seems that as I was descending on about a 060 heading; it was climbing and turning left slowly; causing it to be out of my sight until it got close to my altitude (visibility down and right is rather bad in a C-182 since the door obscures the view). It was not the plane I was looking from from ZZZ; just some other plane that happened to be in the area and not on the CTAF freq.We passed each other around 300 feet away. I turned right to accelerate this. The other plane did not change course and I suspect they never saw me. I do not remember the full tail number of the aircraft. It was a Cessna single-engine with struts. 172 or 182; I suspect.My main issues here: I concentrated too much of my scan on an area of the sky where I expected to see a plane; and i took my eyes off the sky for ten seconds to fumble with an iPad.Other aircraft main issues: visibility UP in a Cessna is much better than DOWN (plexiglass windshield vs aluminum floor/doors). They should have also been looking - my plane should have been in their view for a long time.Corrective actions: switch back to paper checklists - they cannot flip to the wrong page and thus waste valuable eye-time.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a near miss with another aircraft and took evasive action.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
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: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Received an ACARS from the captain of the flight asking me to call him. I tried and was finally able to get a phone to radio patch on a different frequency via phone patch. Captain had stated he had a Brake Sys 2 fault. The captain requested a patch with Maintenance Control and also advised he had gone over the QRH and thought it was safer for him to not follow the QRH. Once I made the phone patch with Maintenance Control and after the conference; myself; the captain and Maintenance Control also agreed for the captain to not follow the QRH procedure as described because following the reset procedure would make the aircraft's anti-skid system inoperative. Since the flight was going to an airport with short runways; I agreed with the captain that in the interest of safety the best possible thing was to not reset the circuit breaker and to continue on to destination with his antiskid operative for landing. The flight continued on without further incident. The wording of the QRH says 'resetting the BSCU in flight may cause the brake system to revert to alternate braking without antiskid at touchdown.' Perhaps if the wording was different or the QRH was changed to give the option to the captain of doing this; things would be clearer. Two days later after talking with the Maintenance Director; he said he had spoken with the Chief Pilot and they both concurred with the decision myself and the captain made. If this flight had be going to an airport with much longer runways I would have objected to not following the QRH and suggested the captain follow the reset; however with the short runways I agreed this was the best option so the crew still had antiskid as an option.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported he and the Captain agreed to deviate from the QRH given the specifics of the brake problem and the short runways at the destination airport.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff climbing through 4;000 MSL; EICAS message Engine 1 Low Oil Pressure. Accomplished Flight Manual procedure; consulted Dispatch; Maintenance Control; ATC; dumped fuel to maximum landing weight; uneventful 3 engine approach and landing. I and the entire crew felt we did an acceptable job. This report is being filed in the event we missed something.




Synopsis: B747-400 Captain reported loss of #1 engine oil pressure. Engine was shut down in accordance with procedure and a normal landing ensued.