elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Intake Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This was a normal flight until leaning for cruise at 7;000. The EGT on all cylinders rose quicker than normal while leaning. Cylinder #6 EGT dropped to zero on the gauge and the engine began to run rough before reaching the normal 18 GPH cruise fuel flow. A second cylinder EGT dropped to zero with more roughness. Mixture was enriched without restoration of full power; engine roughness continued. Approach Control was advised of intent to land at an airport straight ahead and ten miles. Clearance to descend to 2;500 feet was provided. We broke out of the overcast and cancelled IFR with the field well within gliding distance. Controller asked if I wanted a phone number to report a safe landing. I should have declined or remembered the G1000 records ATC communications. Instead; I took the challenge to maneuver for a partial power landing and write down a phone number. Winds were 35 knots from the south and pushed us north of the airport so a no-power landing on the runway would not be possible. The engine responded with enough power to make the runway for an uneventful landing. The mechanical issue was a loose hose clamp on the turbocharger duct that allowed a significant loss of induction system pressure. Fuel [to] air ratios were compromised resulting in the partial loss of power. The mechanic has been briefed on the issue and was apologetic. He applied torque seal to the hose clamp threads even though it was torqued properly. This was following completion of a service bulletin for exhaust system disassembly and inspection. I fault myself for agreeing to write down a phone number while maneuvering; pilot egos often overload themselves. Perhaps controllers should not solicit information below 2;500 feet AGL in such circumstances.




Synopsis: Cessna Stationair experienced partial engine power loss during cruise and made a precautionary landing at nearby airport.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During climb out from MIA; passing 11;000 ft.; 280 kts.; a refrigerator sized object passed below right side of fuselage; maybe 10-20 ft. below. No significant velocity vector perpendicular to our flight path. Object had no wings or foils and was blue and silver. No observed propellers or thrust devices. Could have been some sort of shaped balloon but did not appear to be; as it seemed to have angular geometry. Very high to be a drone and had no likeness to any drone I have ever seen.


Second narrative: I was pilot monitoring as we climbed out of the MIA terminal area. I don't recall the exact altitude; but believe we were approaching sterile cockpit (10;000 ft.) on a climb to 16;000 ft. My eyes were momentarily drawn inside the flight deck; to a message on my CDU; I recall it was the flight log info being printed. Suddenly the Captain; who was flying; exclaimed loudly as if greatly surprised; although no abrupt control inputs were made and the flight path remained unchanged. He asked; 'did you see that;' to which I replied I had not. He proceeded to mention seeing an object that we just barely missed; passing underneath us. He subsequently contacted Miami center and described the event; with the contact being the size of a small car; possibly blue and black in color. ATC queried the contact's direction of flight; I believe the Captain said it was either stationary or moving across our path. The Captain and ATC briefly discussed the possibility of the object being a drone; or some sort of balloon. The event happened very quickly and during a short; relatively task-busy flight. Requisite flight tasks were completed and the flight continued to destination without further incident.


Synopsis: B737 pilot crew reported a NMAC with a large UAV.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: POC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D POC
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT; Tower POC
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: For this event; there were two separate Jump Aircraft. Aircraft X with 9 jumpers and Aircraft Y with 1 jumper. POC tower did not receive any calls or advisories from TRACON for either jump. The POC Local Controller kept aircraft out of the path of both jumps. The way that we knew the first jump occurred was from the information provided by the pilot earlier in the week. I was given a briefing item with the proposed jump times. I noticed the time; and thought it was odd that we had not received any notification from TRACON. Local Control looked out the window and observed the jumpers had already left the aircraft. Local Control attempted to call TRACON on the direct line; 'jumpers away' but got no answer.For the second jump; TRACON had vectored Aircraft Z inbound on a VFR Practice VOR approach and switched the aircraft to Local Control. The pilot of the second jump aircraft called the tower controller on the frequency and advised Local Control that the jumper was away. Local Control had to break Aircraft Z off the approach and give the pilot instructions to keep them out of the path of the jump. Had Aircraft Z continued the VOR approach as cleared; they would have flown through the path of the second jump while they were descending to the landing zone.Coordination between SCT and POC should have been conducted per 7110.65 9-7-1. When I realized Aircraft Z was inbound on the VOR approach I should have advised TRACON that I could not accept the aircraft at this time due to Parachute activities.I as the Front Line Manager should have advised SCT Operations Manager that the first coordination was not accomplished. That may have led the TRACON controller to coordinate the second jump and not to have vectored Aircraft Z inbound while Parachute operations were in effect.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller working parachute jump aircraft did not coordinate the Jumpers leaving the aircraft with the Tower. Reportedly; the jumper's area is in confliction with the VOR Approach. The Tower Controller had to break the aircraft off their approach to resolve a conflict.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A310
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The cabin pressure auto control system regulator #1 failed and caused the aircraft to pressurize on the deck. A ramp worker opened the main cabin door and was struck in the face by the door violently opening.The #1 cabin pressure auto control system regulator failed closed.




Synopsis: A ramp member was injured when opening a cabin door of an A310 while the cabin was pressurized due to a regulator failure.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ASE.TRACON, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ASE
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Center called me (Aspen approach control) to advise that they had lost RADAR and communications with a flight of fighter jets that were filed to enter our airspace towards DBL VOR then direct COS airport. Due to our RADAR being even more limited than Center's I did not receive a data block on the aircraft. A few minutes later I saw a data block start to acquire approximately 4 miles west of the airport. I quickly told Local that the target could quite possibly be two fast moving fighter jets; and that I was not in communication with them. Local control immediately issued a traffic advisory to his arrival on the visual approach. I grabbed some binoculars and began searching as well but I did not get a visual on one of the fight jets until they were well north of the traffic. Aircraft advised local that they received an 'RA' and I advised Denver Center that we would be filing paperwork on it. Such a highly trained pilot; should have more sense than to encroach a Class Delta doing almost 500 knots; inverted; flying directly towards the final and departure corridor in a highly mountainous area where RADAR and radio coverage are known to be limited. Other than the pilot actually adhering to training and regulations already in place; the only recommendation I can put forth would be better RADAR and better radios.




Synopsis: ASE Tower Controller reports of a flight of two aircraft that encroached on the Delta airspace not being controlled and cause an airborne conflict with another aircraft under their control.  Controllers in the Tower could see the aircraft on radar but not out the window until they were no longer a factor. Controller stated the aircraft were doing 500 knots.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach to Airport ZZZ the approach controller called out a traffic target at our 10 O' Clock position about 500 feet below us.  We did not see the traffic immediately; but had them on TCAS.  The controller issued a left turn vector toward the traffic and indicated that the aircraft had turned away from us.  I spotted the traffic visually and it appeared to be a single engine aircraft doing turns around a point in the VFR/General Aviation practice area clear of the Class D for ZZZ. As it continued its turn and began to fly towards us again; we got a 'monitor vertical speed' aural warning.  The traffic then appeared to start climbing and we received an 'adjust vertical speed' command.  The FO disconnected the autopilot and promptly responded to the CLIMB command.  We were clear of conflict within seconds and reported the RA to ATC as well as asked for a NMAC report to be filed.  After landing I was given a phone number to the [approach control] supervisor.  I explained to him what happened; which also mirrored what his controller had reported to him.  He said he would file a NMAC report.




Synopsis: MD80 Captain at 2;800 feet approaching destination is advised by ATC of traffic at 10 O'clock and 500 feet below; then is issued a vector toward the traffic. The traffic starts to climb resulting in a TCAS TA then an RA. The Captain asks ATC to file an NMAC report.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection; In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the approach to landing; I decided that I was too fast to land so I initiated a go around procedure. I applied the power and then retracted the gear. After retracting the gear the engine quit producing power. I was too low to extend the gear again and running out of room on the runway. I elected to land the aircraft with the gear up to minimize damage. After the incident I looked at the aircraft logbooks and realized the annual was due in March and I thought it was due in May. The corrective action includes but not limited to using a calendar with reminders to jointly inform the maintenance facility and myself to alert us to when action is required. The corrective action to reduce the risk of landing an aircraft with the gear up is to wait for a longer period after applying power for a go around procedure to retract the gear in case of engine failure.




Synopsis: After a steep and fast approach; a C210 pilot reports initiating a go around and retracting the gear. Shortly after; the engine quits. With insufficient time to extend the gear; a belly landing ensues on the remaining runway.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The Hyper 4 arrival was superseded by the Hyper 5 arrival in September 2014. This was the first time I had flown the Hyper 5 since it changed. The Hyper 4 had one sequence of arrival fixes after MULRR. The Hyper 5 has 6 branches of arrivals following MULRR. The Arrival Route Description states that arrivals landing HEF and 9 other area airports (Manassas was my destination) should 'From MULRR on track 230 to CEVEE; then on heading 230; expect radar vectors to final approach course.' I was prepared to fly the arrival as published for HEF. Somewhere prior to MULRR the controller told me to descend and maintain 7000 and proceed directly to what sounded like CEVEE. I read back 'descend and maintain 7000 and direct CEVEE.' There was no correction to my readback from the controller. When near CEVEE the controller asked if I was proceeding to SIGBE. I responded that I was at CEVEE; and asked if he wanted me to go to SIGBE. He said yes and gave me a vector towards SIGBE and then direct TICON. We both agreed that the fix names SIGBE and CEVEE sound too similar to be the first fixes on branches of the same arrival procedure. SIGBE has been the only fix after MULRR for a long time and it appears as though the controllers still mostly use that branch. Expectations of traffic going to all 10 airports other than Washington Dulles (IAD) on this arrival are that they would be going to CEVEE. Recommend changing the name of one of the two intersections to more clearly differentiate between them and avoid future confusion.




Synopsis: A Captain reports two similar sounding fix names used by PCT with the HYPER 5 arrival resulted in a track deviation. The reported fixes are CEEVE and SIGBE.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on ILS approach over the final approach fix in landing configuration the number 2 engine failed. Followed procedures and landed without further incident.


Second narrative: On short final; configured for landing and before landing checklist complete; Number 2 engine failed. No abnormal indication; no fire indication. Declared emergency; due to proximity to landing; continued and landed without incident. Engine failed no abnormal indications. Believe course of action was correct; due to proximity to landing.


Synopsis: An EMB145's right engine failed on final so the pilots declared an emergency and continued the landing without incident. No abnormal indications of any kind noted.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SUS.Airport, MO
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: SUS Tower hours of operation are now 07:00 local - 20:00 local.However; the Chart Supplement (formerly A/FD) still lists their pre-pandemic hours of XA:00-23:00L.There are no NOTAMS showing the COVID-adjusted hours.Can you please have SUS Tower issue NOTAMs of adjusted tower hours; or amend the Chart Supplement to show their new correct hours.




Synopsis: Pilot reported the Chart Supplement still shows pre-pandemic hours for SUS Tower.  Reporter stated there are no NOTAMs addressing this issue either.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On takeoff we were climbing out on our initial climb following our climb via clearance. I was flying and saw Aircraft Y cross the windscreen above us from left to right less than 500 feet. I reacted by pulling back power as we received a Resolution Advisory to descend which I started to follow. That Resolution Advisory went away after a couple seconds. CA informed Tower that we responded to a Resolution Advisory and asked where the traffic was since the Resolution Advisory disappeared so fast. I had told him I saw Aircraft Y pass above and ATC confirmed they had cleared traffic to cross overhead. We continued the flight as normal. I had heard ATC clear traffic to cross overhead thinking they would be over the approach end and we had a slightly steeper climb since we were light. After landing we called the ZZZ Tower to ask what happened and they informed us that the Aircraft Y had crossed further west than they anticipated. After the fact; pulling power and lowering the nose after traffic passed and following the Resolution Advisory for a couple seconds.




Synopsis: Corporate jet First Officer reported ATC failed to provide separation between traffic resulting in an NMAC.