elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SDF.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SDF
ATC / advisory: Tower SDF
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On short final into SDF RWY 17R I noticed a shiny object slightly below and to the left of the aircraft on final. It was not directly in the flight path but close enough to be noticed. I noted that aircraft was 3 miles from the runway and 600 feet AGL. The drone was slightly below us (estimate 400 feet) and East of the extended centerline (estimate 2;500 feet). At first; I thought it might be a balloon; but recognized it as a drone as it passed abeam and behind us. The FO (First Officer) was flying and given the phase of flight and that I did not feel that it was an immediate threat; I elected to wait until we were clear of the runway to inform the FO and Ground Control.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an airborne conflict with a drone during final approach to SDF airport.
Date: 201910
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Dispatch; Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Phone communication was received from departure airport cargo Lead advising of unknown mail item loaded on aircraft at final. Lead was advised of the need to return the aircraft back to the gate to verify and confirm of unknown item(s) loaded on the aircraft. Stations Operations Office; Flight dispatch and Operations manager were notified of the ramp loading error. Moments later the aircraft departed without revised weights.Destination operations were notified to perform an offload audit upon arrival. 1018lbs of cargo classified as H7E (DG/Hazmat) was confirmed offloaded from pit-4 nesting system with no mail item(s) onboard. Cargo representatives were notified of the shipment loaded on the aircraft. It was confirmed the shipment was destined for a different Airport. After revising weights in [weight and balance software] in training mode a significant weight change of 868lbs was generated representing 0.55% adjustment from the original takeoff weight. Percent MAC changed from 24.9 to 25.4 (+0.5).




Synopsis: Ground personnel reported a communication breakdown regarding Hazmat cargo erroneously loaded aircraft allowed aircraft departed prior to requesting around gate return.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GRK.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D GRK
ATC / advisory: Tower GRK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on the visual portion of the ILS 33 to GRK we received multiple 'glide slope' call outs from EGPWS below 100-150 ft. AGL. Through the entire approach the aircraft appeared to be perfectly stable. We crossed the Runway threshold at about 40 feet and made a normal landing within the touchdown zone. I believe we continuously remained in a position to make a normal landing using PAPI and other outside cues. When the 'glide slope' warning sounded the First Officer automatically pulled the nose up a little; and made a 'correcting' call out. Due to that action we touched down passed the 1000 foot markers but well within the touchdown zone. We exited the runway at taxiway C with minimal braking.Suggestions: It's been at least a couple of years since I've been to GRK; but I remember having a similar experience with the glideslope for Runway 33 in the past; below published Decision Altitude. There's also a note on the approach plate stating that VGSI is not coincidental with ILS GS.


Second narrative: The crew was shooting the ILS 33 into Killeen. We were visual at 500ft. The autopilot was disconnected at 200ft (minimums) and in poor weather conditions we anticipated not overshooting the touchdown zone. In result; we received multiple glide slope annunciation from the aircraft. The aircraft was stable through the entire approach and corrective actions were taken having the crew cross the threshold at 40 feet.The cause for event was not allowing myself to transition to visual conditions with adequate time. I had continued to fly visually with little regard to instruments leading to an illusion. Corrective action was taken with a stable aircraft landing safely in the touchdown zone.Suggestions: Rely on automation longer to allow eyes to adjust to visual conditions reducing chance of illusions.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported receiving multiple 'glideslope' warnings while in a stable ILS approach to GRK.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed runway and climbed to 500 feet at approximately 5 miles south the engine began to lose power. Checked throttle and power returned to normal approximately 2;300 rpm. 10-15 seconds later began to lose power again and I applied carb heat and rpms returned. 10-15 sec later the engine again began to lose power. I checked throttle; carb heat; fuel valve and mags. The engine began to surge losing rpms with each cycle. I continued to head south with good fields below if off airport landing was required. I began to lose altitude and was about to commit to an off airport landing when an airport came into view. Having a hand held radio and not having time to look up the temporary Tower frequency and now at an altitude of 350 feet AGL and descending I continued on a straight in approach and landed without contacting the Tower. Immediately after landing I did contact the tower by phone. Tower personnel understood nature of the Emergency approach and landing and had no issue with the event. The engine was rebuilt in 2004 and stored for 10 years prior to installation on subject aircraft. Twice in the approximately 27 hours of flying in the past two weeks the carburetor and fuel screens were checked and found clean or very little material. On disassembly of carburetor; contamination was found behind the carburetor screen and throughout the carburetor.




Synopsis: Light aircraft pilot reports loosing power at 500 feet shortly after takeoff. All efforts at restoring full power are unsuccessful and the reporter is able limp into an airport along his route of flight. Contaminates in the fuel are found to be clogging the fuel strainer.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was climbing with the autopilot; instructed to climb to 10;000 FT when the Approach Controller started nearly yelling at me to descend instantly. When I looked at my altimeter it read 10;200 FT and so I quickly descended to 10;000 FT . He continued to yell; repeatedly telling me to descend to 10;000 FT; even though I informed him multiple times that that's exactly where I was; and he then told me there was traffic descending above me. He accused me of being at 10;500 FT and climbing when I seemed confused as to his demeanor. I'm not sure if he was exaggerating or if the transponder in the airplane was sending faulty information; but I am very sure I was nowhere near 10;500 FT. I was likely still in a slow climb; but with a fully loaded C208B (Caravan) I doubt my climb rate could have been very much. Again; I'm not sure what he saw on his screen; but I know I was only 200 FT high; not 500. A definite factor here is fatigue. I was fatigued to the point of losing situational awareness and not knowing whether I had reached 10;000 FT because of the schedule I fly 6 days a week; 14 hour days; and flights every morning at 6:30 am local time. I realize the FAA allows 9 hours rest for scheduled Part 135 operations; but I would STRONGLY consider raising that limit. It may be safe for some pilots; but every person has different needs; and instances like this make me realize how dangerous extended schedules that don't allow for much actual sleep can be.




Synopsis: A C208B pilot reported fatigue from long duty days; six days a week and momentarily climbing 200 FT about the 10;000 FT altitude assigned before an Approach Controller urgently demanded a descent.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
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 Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: All engine instruments ok during acceleration and rotation. At 600 ft AGL; reduced power to climb settings. At 1000 ft AGL; turned boost pump off and reduced mixtures per SOP. At 1200 ft AGL; left engine failed. Checked fuel selectors and set aux fuel pump to low with no change. Proceeded to shut left engine down and feather propeller. First Officer [advised ATC] and we were cleared to land on any runway. Using QRH; began left engine restart procedures and noticed that both left magnetos were off. Following QRH procedures; successfully restarted left engine. Returned to ZZZ with both engines running. Taxied to company parking; shutdown and deplaned passengers.




Synopsis: C402 flight crew reported an engine failure during climbout followed by a shutdown with a successful restart and return to the departure airport.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Other Photo Mission
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft X had requested days in advance to work a 'photo mission' directly over the airport at 1;900 feet. Flying east and west and working southbound. This puts Aircraft X directly in towered airspace and in Class B for the majority of this time. As Aircraft X called me for flight following I was informed by my CIC (Controller in Charge) that Tower has refused to accept communications on this aircraft that will be in THEIR airspace and that I must give them a point out and they will 'miss the traffic with their traffic'. There are a multitude of issues with this situation:First and foremost the ATC system is built for the SAFE AND EFFICIENT flow of air traffic. Allowing this operation in the first place is neither of those. As a controller I want to deny the operation but at this TRACON there seems to be a HUGE lack of responsibility at the Supervisor and Operations Manager level. Everyone at those levels knows that this operation is unsafe but is unwillingly to deny it at their level. Therefore leaving a controller on position feeling handcuffed and pressured to allow this operation to happen. The Operation Manager had pulled the CIC aside (who was against allowing this operation) and informed him to tell me how this was going to work. Again there should not be this kind of pressure put on a controller. Allowing this aircraft takes away any ability of ensuring any kind of separation in the event of a go-around.   The list of issues with this operation is just the tip of the iceberg. Photo missions and pressure to accommodate at the EXPENSE OF SAFETY has been a growing issue in this facility for years. The lack of support and unwillingness to deny this kind of operation at an Operation Supervisor and Operation Manager level; leaving controllers feeling forced to work an unsafe operation; is a huge concern. This needs to be addressed.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported a photo mission aircraft flying an unsafe route was allowed to proceed through the airspace.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ANW.Airport, NE
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was first made aware of a wildfire reported by an aircraft on the late night shift. I forwarded the report to the Operations Manager In Charge (OMIC) at that time. When I returned to work after my RDOs; there were Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR's) in place in the vicinity of ANW for firefighting aircraft working at the same wildfire. The TFR descriptions we had gave locations and altitudes for the protected airspace; but didn't specify what the actual flight restrictions were. When I asked the FLM to clarify the TFR's; I was told to 'assume' that it was IFR prohibited and VFR strongly discouraged. Normally the TFR's we receive are more specific; describing the actual flight restrictions. These TFR's did not; so I asked the FLM to investigate to determine what the actual restrictions; instead of having us assume what they were. As we are involved in a significant aviation event we have additional aircraft receiving VFR advisories. If we were mistaken and the TFR actually prohibited all aircraft from those areas; we were misinforming aircraft and possibly setting them up to be reported as TFR violators. Several days later the TFR's were still in effect; but it's still unknown what the flight restrictions actually are. Today; my FLM said it was his understanding that all aircraft were prohibited from the areas; and I told him that we had been telling VFR aircraft receiving advisories all week that flight through the area was strongly discouraged; not prohibited; and he conceded that the TFR description lacked what the actual flight restriction. If indeed the intent of the TFR was to sterilize the airspace to protect the firefighting aircraft operations; it is a serious safety hazard that we are not accomplishing that task and allowing VFR aircraft to transit those areas. TFR's need to specify what the actual airspace restrictions are. Also; when asked to clarify FLMs need to follow through and determine what the flight restrictions in a TFR actually are; so that we can properly advise aircraft of the restrictions.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller described multiple fire fighting TFR potential violations because restrictions to VFR aircraft were not defined for days.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SoCal TRACON (SCT) called to point out Aircraft X on Departure Procedure (DP) toward PMD VOR leaving 10;000 feet climbing. ANT [Antelope] sector works At or Below (AOB) 13;000 feet at PMD VOR. ANT controller attempted to issue turn to the SCT controller who then advised that communication had already been transferred to ZLA.Aircraft X showed 380 kts ground speed and climb rate well below 1000 fpm. ANT controller issued turns to two arrivals to miss Aircraft X. The new RNAV HAYEZ5 DP from VNY enters ANT airspace direct PMD head on with arrival routings to VNY; BUR; SMO; NTD; CMA and OXR. The DP shortens the flying distance for VNY departures vs. the NUAL9 DP which makes the aircraft considerably lower when proceeding to PMD. [Recommend] Discontinue use of the HAYEZ5 and use only the NUAL9 when VNY Runway 34.




Synopsis: ZLA Center Controller reported that the RNAV HAYEZ5 departure procedure placed aircraft in conflict  with arrivals to multiple airports in the LA Area.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: A80.TRACON, GA
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B A80
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was being relieved off of Departure Radar North (DRN) when Aircraft X departed flashing 'DM' (Departure Message) in the data block. I hurried to finish the relief briefing so I could troubleshoot. When I did; I found Aircraft Y inbound to ATL.  [Airline Company] had two aircraft with the same call sign in the air at the same time.  We advised our Aircraft X he was now going to be Aircraft XA and I made the change in ERAM.I advised the supervisor and asked if he wanted to take care of it or if I should; he said; 'go ahead'. I don't believe he took any action.Please share this information with whoever you see fit.  [Airline company] should be asked to advise their dispatchers to take greater caution when flight numbers involve different aircraft; especially at their HUBs. In this case; it wasn't a huge problem; it created confusion and additional workload; but it is nonetheless unacceptable.




Synopsis: A80 controller reports of two aircraft with the same call sign in the airspace; one an arrival and the other was a departure. Controller added a letter to the end of one of the calls signs.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-90 Series (DC-9-90) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the takeoff I noticed a R ENG SYSTEM FAIL message on the overhead annunciator panel while approaching 80 knots. By the time the RTO maneuver was initiated; the noticed airspeed was about 90 knots. In hindsight; I should have continued the takeoff.




Synopsis: MD90 Captain reported experiencing an engine failure on the takeoff roll at 80 KTS so he initiated a rejected takeoff.