elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Second aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A DC10 and a CRJ7 conflicted with one another. Both were at interim altitudes of FL350. The DC10 made a hard turn at a new fix that was implemented recently as part of new SIDS at MEM. There was moderate to heavy traffic with numerous aircraft in conflictions and a lot going on. I was working the RADAR Associate position and I was trying to keep up and take care of coordination and other duties as well as trying to listen to the R-Side. The R-Side had a few aircraft on vectors. I was unaware of the sharp turn the DC10 was going to make and was paying attention to other things. Sector 35 called our sector and the calls were forwarded to me. I answered and the controller asked if we were doing anything to separate those two aircraft. I told him I thought the R-Side had the DC10 turned out but it was a different aircraft. I got off the line and double checked with the R-Side who took immediate action to turn the two aircraft. It was a moment too late and a loss of separation occurred. The new SIDS was a large factor to this loss of separation. The aircraft go westbound for several miles and then make really large abrupt turns; depending on their route of flight after the SID. It has been a problem since its introduction a couple of months ago. I understand that those in charge of airspace are aware of this and are moving these fixes closer to MEM to cut down on this problem.




Synopsis: ZME Controller described a conflict event involving traffic departing MEM both utilizing the new SIDS recently implemented; the reporter claiming the new SIDS were a large contributing factor in this instance.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; 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; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure out of ZZZ through about 400 ft. AGL we received the master warning and left engine fire indication. My First Officer was flying and I ran the QRH and he operated the radios and flight controls. ATC gave us left traffic and we ran the QRH; [requested ATC assistance]; briefed the flight attendants; announced to the passengers and performed a flaps 20 landing.I have no exact assumption as to what caused the fire in the left engine.  My best guess is from my experience is the bleed air broke off the valve and created emended heat in the cowl.Having a fire on an airplane is probably the most frightening thing I have ever encountered in my life. I am thankful that our crew; ATC; Crash Fire Rescue; and the flight attendants all did our best that day and there was no harm to any crew or passengers or further damage to the airplane.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported an engine fire indication; resulting in an engine shutdown and return to the departure airport.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was de-iced. On start; received smoke warning. Stopped push back. We informed Maintenance; Tower; complied with QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) and informed the dispatcher. Opened door L1 to air out plane. Smoke warning was cleared and CA (Captain) wrote up event in forms. [Company/base] Maintenance signed off aircraft as safe and airworthy. We continued without further incident. Deice fluid near APU intake caused smoke warning.




Synopsis: A300 First Officer reported smoke warning was activated after de-icing.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in Aircraft X with a student. We were doing pattern work on Runway XX at ZZZ airport along with two other aircraft and we were on final approach for [Runway] XX when Aircraft Y reported 3 mile final for [Runway] XX. He had been reporting a straight-in approach for [Runway] XX since 10 miles out; but as I came over the threshold of [Runway] XX; I noticed he was over the threshold of the opposing Runway XY. I immediately had my student do a go-around and miss going head-on into this traffic reporting the wrong runway. After we called our go-around; there was no more radio calls from Aircraft Y. This pilot clearly needs to be contacted by the proper authorities and possibly needs to go back and be retrained.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 instructor pilot reported a NMAC with opposite direction traffic attempting to land on the same runway.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JAN.Airport, MS
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C JAN
ATC / advisory: Tower JAN
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon checking on with JAN approach; we were told to expect vectors for the visual approach runway 16L. Shortly after that; we were placed on a vector that would take us outside the final approach fix for the ILS 16L and traffic was called out to us as a 'Aircraft Y on a 6 mile final'. We were still approximately 20 miles from the airport. About 10 miles from the airport we were told to proceed directly to the final approach fix on the ILS 16L. About 2 miles from this fix; the airport direction and distance was called out by ATC and we informed that we had it in sight. Subsequently they cleared us for the visual 16L and asked us to switch to tower frequency. We checked in with tower and were cleared to land runway 16L. As we approached the airport; fully configured and stabilized; I noticed that an aircraft was on the runway approximately 1500 ft down from the approach end. I immediately pointed this out to the Captain/Pilot Flying and keyed the mike to query ATC about the aircraft. I said; 'Is the runway clear?' He informed me it was not and to be prepared for a go around. Seconds after that and upon conferring with the captain; we executed a go around at approximately 400 ft AGL. As we passed over the runway on the go around the aircraft was still attempting to taxi off. We entered left traffic for runway 16L and landed uneventfully. Failure on the part of ATC to inform us of an aircraft still on the runway on initial check in. We had landing data for runway 16R and could have side stepped to that runway. Failure of the landing aircraft ahead to clear the runway in a reasonable amount of time. The pilot of that aircraft was confused and disoriented made apparent by his radio communications to tower.




Synopsis: Pilot observes aircraft on runway when on short final. Pilot executes go-around and advises ATC reason for go-around. ATC did not advise pilot of landing traffic that aircraft was on the runway.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Heavy Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While cruising at FL360 between JORDY way point and KP72C way point; on our flight to ZZZ; the aircraft suddenly and unexpectedly encountered a pocket of moderate turbulence lasting for less than five seconds. Up until that point; the flight had been completely smooth as Air Traffic Control and our weather packet indicated. The only possible explanation was that we must have hit the wake turbulence of an extremely heavy crossing traffic; however; we didn't see any visually; or on the TCAS. Even though the seatbelt sign was off; the Flight Attendants indicated that there were no passengers standing at the time. The rest of the flight was smooth again all the way to ZZZ. I think that the only way to prevent this type of event from happening is for Air Traffic Control to be more wary and informative about the potential for wake turbulence to exist in the vicinity of heavy or super-type aircraft. And possibly more studies need to be done to see what the persistence of this type of turbulence is.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence at FL360; apparently from an unreported heavy aircraft.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAD.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Washington approach was vectoring long down winds for runway 1R. 1L was unprepared and 1R was reported braking action fair. We were at 4000 feet and approach continued us on downwind after the last fix on the HYPER5.01R. ATC told us that they were delaying our turn a bit at 18 DME AML. At 20 DME AML; I told the Captain (CA) that we were exiting Class B airspace and ATC should have told us according to JO 7110.65V. ATC turned us to 280 and descended us to 3000 MSL (floor of Class B from 20-15 DME AML). Just inside 20 DME; ATC told us to descend and maintain 2000 which would put us below Class B floor without giving us specific authorization to operate below Class B. This is not legal. I told Captain I was going to delay descent in an effort to stay above the floor. ATC then repeated the descent clearance at about 17.5 DME; and we told him that we were endeavoring to stay above Class B floor which is required. We were then switched to tower without incident or comment. We heard approach tell traffic following us that he was descending them below class B airspace; which is what he should have told us in conjunction with our clearance to 2000 MSL.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported being cleared below class B airspace without notice from ATC.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 70
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E S46
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Glider
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was PIC for a two-person glider turning in a thermal a few miles east of Bergseth Field in Enumclaw; Washington. I was flying with a CFI-Glider rated passenger; who was in the rear seat.We were required to quickly deviate from our altitude and intended course to vacate the flight path of a Boeing 767.My CFI-Glider rated passenger was on the controls climbing in a thermal and I was watching for traffic. When I saw the conflicting traffic I estimated that it was perhaps 2 miles away at 2 o'clock (going to 12 o'clock with our rapid clockwise turn rate); generally at our altitude of 7;000 feet.At [an estimated] 270 knots that means it may have been about 15 seconds of distance. It's unlikely we would have been able to see it on our prior turn; given that it was traveling at 4.5 NM per minute.The conflicting traffic did not appear to deviate from their course or altitude. We don't believe they ever saw us. We did keep turning to possibly get some lateral distance; but primarily dove away approximately 300 feet.We did not see the aircraft after making initial visual contact and turning/diving away; until it was well past us. We do not know how closely it approached by us.I fly powered aircraft IFR and was well aware of the CHINS ONE arrival in the area; so we discussed it while proceeding to the White River valley area. I determined the Approach Control frequency for the procedure on my mobile device; but the glider's radio was inoperative and we were unable to reach them on our handheld radios to receive VFR flight following services or at least alert ATC to our presence.We had noted other traffic flying the arrival route earlier and knew that it was active. We could have looked for better lift conditions elsewhere to avoid the situation with the traffic conflict. If our glider had been transponder equipped it would have led to a TCAS advisory and the situation also could have been avoided.




Synopsis: A glider pilot reported an airborne conflict with a B767 while climbing in a thermal southeast of Seattle-Tacoma; Washington.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Yankee AA1
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While loading my plane at ZZZ I noticed the wind was favoring runway XX. My daughter noted that the wind sock was also favoring runway XX. As I announced my departure from runway XX I heard a faint XY" on [frequency] XXX.YY. I stopped and asked if anyone was taking off on XY. Then I saw a high wing plane taking off on XY. Then again announced my departure on XY. Note: you cannot see end to end on this runway at ZZZ. Upon taking off I found a low wing plane departing from XY. We were both airborne. Fortunately we both broke to our right at the same time. Wondering if I missed something about wind direction I turned up the volume on YYY.ZZ and found the wind to be still 050 at 3 knots. As to the operation of my radio it worked fine talking to four different ATC facilities on the way home. For ZZZ I would recommend a camera and TV screen at each end so you can see what's at each end. Don't know if you could aim one on the approach for landing plane. Don't know how you would fix downwind takeoffs. Well downwind take offs are not prohibited I think you should put the odds on your side should you have engine failure during the takeoff phase of flight."




Synopsis: Pilot reported taking evasive action on take off when another aircraft departed on the opposing runway.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HQZ.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: CTAF HQZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed HQZ Runway 17 in Cessna 150 for traffic pattern work. Student pilot in Cessna departed after; asked if we were staying in pattern as he had announced he had turned crosswind behind me. He also said I had extended my upwind. I said [I] would give way. Upon turning crosswind found he had was not on crosswind; was just turning crosswind behind me. I then turned downwind; announced was midfield downwind. Turned base; then final; announcing each. No position reports by student pilot; who had been below and behind me despite his misreporting his position on crosswind. On final at 400 AGL saw student in Cessna was above me on final; overtaking me. Announced we were below and just ahead and that I was breaking left and going around to give student above and behind me right of way. Student in Cessna landed; we landed after going around. Tried to discuss with student to make sure he was alright and extract mutual lessons learned. Not obvious that student learned anything from the conversation. My learning was to always keep traffic in sight; even if behind one; especially if they are misreporting position. Also to over communicate re position especially if other pilot has poor syntax and appears inexperienced.




Synopsis: A C150 pilot in the HQZ traffic pattern reported a student pilot not communicating VFR pattern positions accurately and then when the student was 200 FT over him on short final; he executed a go-around.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arrival we met with the out bound crew to hand off the aircraft. The First Officer who preflighted the aircraft for his leg found some metallic tape covering the pitot static port on the right side of the aircraft. I assume I had missed this on previous preflight inspections and am not sure when or where this tape was adhered to the aircraft. I was in the same airplane for four flight segments. If it was put on the aircraft by Maintenance or maliciously; I am unaware. There were no inflight abnormalities or any change to the instrumentation so we were unaware of why we did not have any other issues with the ports being covered. If it was Maintenance that placed the tape there they should have used approved pitot static covers or colored tape. The aluminum colored tape is the same color of the port and very hard to see.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 First Officer was notified that silver colored speed tape was discovered covering the First Officer static ports of an aircraft he had preflighted and flown on a series of flights after it was released that morning following overnight maintenance.