elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working PA-46 northbound climbing to FL180 approximately out of FL170 when he says he's an emergency; single engine; no power; can't hold altitude. I vectored him to the nearest airport. He got the airport in sight and I cleared him for the Visual Approach. I noticed traffic south of the airport and asked if he'd rather be on airport advisory frequency or with me. In a nutshell he said he'd rather stay with me and circled the airport to troubleshoot the problem. During this whole time frame; I had about 3 departures and one aircraft requesting a complex re-route. I must have made at least 5 transmissions to the re-route aircraft before getting the correct route. A point out had to be accomplished with the new route. I called the Supervisor to help me get it in URET; it got in; but incorrectly; which caused need of more transmissions to the aircraft as well as too much attention focused on the URET. PA-46 came back and said he would land; his engine is still sputtering. I in turn terminated his RADAR service; had him squawk VFR and gave a frequency change when I should have had him report IFR cancellation with me or on the ground. He landed safely but the issue is my incorrect termination phraseology. In hind sight I should have just handed the re-route aircraft off to the next sector and had him request the route change there. I spent way too much focus and attention on him as opposed to the emergency. It probably sidetracked me.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller failed to utilize proper RADAR termination phraseology with an emergency aircraft; distracted by a complicated re-route effort.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Logbook Entry

Narrative: My partner and I were assigned an aircraft. This aircraft was scheduled to sit and have an Aircraft Service (ASE) complied with. We complied with the part of it; and was going to finish up the ASE portion of it after our second aircraft was taken care of. We found a wing light inoperative and wrote that up; then went to aircraft Y. Aircraft Y came in and we complied with the [required checks] on this aircraft. We had a few write ups; nose tire change; cargo seals pulled out; O2 PSI low. While complying with these write ups; aircraft X was called up. I helped finish up the second aircraft and went to pull [deferred maintenance] logs for both aircraft. Gave my partner the [deferred maintenance] log for aircraft Y and I took aircraft X's [deferred maintenance] log back to aircraft X. Once there I deferred the wing light and finished up the [required] check and signed the book for those items. I decided to pull a new [deferred maintenance] log for aircraft X since I had time and add a MEL to it instead of writing it into the previous [deferred maintenance] log. I did not sign the Airworthiness Release (AWR) at this time until I had the new [deferred maintenance] log. I printed the new [deferred maintenance] log and filled it out and placed it into the book and I failed to sign the AWR. I went back to aircraft Y and we kicked out this aircraft. I went back to aircraft X and waited for the crew to show up. When the crew came I waited for about 10 to 15 minutes so they could get their preflight finished. I went up the stairs where I was met by the Captain heading down the stairs. He stated 'I was just coming down to see you; logbook looks good.' so I turned and did not go up and look for myself; went back down to wait for the loading to be completed and check the aircraft for doors prior to departure. I worked the head set and launched the aircraft without an AWR.




Synopsis: After accomplishing checks on two different airplanes; Maintenance neglected to sign off the airworthiness release for an MD11 aircraft.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tail Rotor Hub
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My mechanic informed me that the tail rotor yoke was supposed to have been removed and replaced at ACTT 17146.0 and I had overflown it by 9.2hrs. After verifying the times in the aircraft logbook; and our company's Maintenance Tracking Report I confirmed that the part should have been replaced prior to our flights on DATE. The mechanic reported the error to his boss and the aircraft was removed from service until the replacement part could be received and installed.Variables that contributed to the situation: This item was missed during maintenance staffing crew change and pass down; and therefore was not carried forward onto the company's Technical Dispatch Form which is in the aircraft logbook and outlines upcoming maintenance actions. There was also confusion due to difficulty in determining which maintenance actions are upcoming based on how the information was populated in the company's Maintenance Tracking Report.Finally; we were both focused on ongoing troubleshooting of intermittent electrical issues with the Bambi Bucket and cargo hook release systems for several days prior.I have filled out our company's reporting form which is part of our safety program and it will be sent to the Safety Officer. Hopefully this will be used as a learning tool and prompt an evaluation of how information is both laid out; and disseminated to crews working in the field. The mechanic and I will both be more diligent and thorough monitoring upcoming maintenance in the future.




Synopsis: Helicopter Captain reported overflying a service interval that was missed by maintenance tracking.
Date: 201707
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were told to enter a holding pattern due to thunderstorms on the field. While descending we experienced a total green hydraulic failure. We [advised ATC] and diverted. During the divert we had to run many checklists which included manually extending the gear. We came to a complete stop on the runway with emergency equipment standing by which shut down the runway. We were then towed to the gate. At that point we proceed to Ops to fill out safety and incident reports which we could not do because the system was down. We spent several hours in Ops; talked to the Operations Manager several times; and tried to arrange hotel.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported the green hydraulic system failed resulting in a successful divert.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LEE.Airport, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp LEE
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Ramp
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Was flying night flight time building with another pilot. Landed fine on the runway and got off Taxiway D to look for the self serve fuel pump. The ramp was very dark...saw a sign for self serve fuel pump; I thought fuel was there; taxied the airplane over; but did not find fuel pump; kept taxiing straight on the ramp; ramp was very poorly lighted. I stated out loud that I do not see anything; my Co-pilot suggested I keep going straight and unfortunately I did taxi straight into a ditch; pitch black; not enough airport lighting on this ramp; right across from FBO X.Airport poor lighting was [a] contributory factor. After talking to local airport personnel as well; he stated that yes he could see why it happened at that point since it's too dark on this ramp. No night visible markers on the ramp caution from the upcoming ditch! This unfortunate event could have been prevented if airport would have enough night lights and warning of this hot spot. To prevent future similar events corrective action of installing lighting around the ramp at night would prevent this.




Synopsis: GA pilot training at night experienced a ramp excursion at LEE airport.  Poor lighting was cited as a contributing factor.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft; MEL; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: 2 AMT's were assigned to troubleshoot a [deferred maintenance] item Seat 1A Electric position Functions inop. They found that the harness leading to the remote control (retractable electric cable) was bad; and that we did not have one here. The AMTs contacted [Maintenance Control] for MEL [A] to put that portion of the seat inop (the seat was still usable through alternate controls). When [Maintenance Control] was contacted; they said we also need to put MEL [B] (Flight Crew Rest Facilities and Equipment) on the aircraft as well. The AMTs complied with [Maintenance Control]; and added that MEL on the aircraft.The question that came into play; was that as per [MEL B] Para. C; because this was seat 1A (or 2A) a seat must be clearly identified for flight crew rest; and a placard must be installed (For Flight Crew Rest Only/ Class 3 Rest Facility); and then Para D. states to contact Dispatch with the seat numbers that will be used for flight crew rest.And this then became the issue. How does the AMT putting the MEL on the airplane know what seat will be used for flight crew rest? We spoke to [a supervisor]; and he said it would be assigned locally; but again; how can the AMT be compliant with the MEL at the time of issue? The AMT has no way of knowing seat availability; etc. We also were told that this was a Class I flight; which did not need a crew rest seat; but if it was a class III flight; then it would.This issue was brought to our attention by an FAA inspector that was onsite. We all believe both MELs [A] and [B] should be clarified to give clear and concise directions on how to comply with MEL. As it is written now it leads to different interpretation between Aircraft Maintenance; [Maintenance Control] and Dispatch. This was confirmed during the FAA inspection when we received three different ways to comply with MELs. So as not to bring confusion when getting an MEL; or to make sure the AMT is compliant when applying the MEL we asking both MELs to be revised.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported confusing MEL requirements for crew rest seats.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: PFD
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise flight as part of a flight of two aircraft in loose formation; on a direct route from ZZZ; main instrument display; Dynon EFIS-D100 failed going blank resulting in loss of multiple flight instruments including airspeed; altitude; magnetic compass; turn rate; slip/skid ball; bank and vertical speed. I attempted to reset the system first by resetting the circuit breaker and then by cycling the avionics power with no joy. Backup AHRS was available via an iPad running ForeFlight with a Stratus 2.Given the location over mountainous terrain and a strong tailwind; I elected to continue the flight west to clear the mountains in excellent VMC with the aircraft in loose formation validating altitude and airspeed data.  The flight terminated uneventfully at ZZZ1 without ever recovering the D-100. This aircraft is equipped with both a D-100 and a D-120 which gives the illusion of redundancy; however once the D-100 went down; all AHRS information was lost on the D-120 as well even though engine information continued to display.The combination of ForeFlight and the Stratus 2 with full AHRS turned out to be an excellent and reliable backup with very accurate altitude and groundspeed information provided; though I will be having a backup system installed to provide full redundancy for airspeed and barometric altitude.




Synopsis: Kitfox pilot in formation flight reported primary instrument failure over mountainous terrain. Pilot used electronic flight bag as a backup navigation device.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
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 on my return leg of a cross-country flight for my Commercial Pilot training. Approximately 15 NM NE of ZZZ; at 10;500 MSL; I was released from flight following by Approach and contacted Tower for landing clearance. I was proceeding direct to ZZZZZ intersection. Shortly after crossing ZZZZZ; I was instructed by Tower to turn 'toward the fairgrounds' which put me on a heading of approximately 150 degrees and kept me about 1-2 NM outside the ZZZ airspace. As I was descending through 6;900 MSL for 6;000 MSL; pattern altitude; a glider made a climbing right turn directly across my nose. I estimate our distance was 300-500 feet horizontal. Although I was aware of the glider port in that area; I did not see the glider below me until he turned across my nose. I immediately climbed and turned away from the glider and notified Tower of the glider activity. Shortly afterward; I was turned back toward the airport for landing. When I made the turn; I saw another glider; total of 2; soaring in the area between approximately 1;500-3;000 AGL. I continued to land without issue.I believe there were several contributing factors to the event. Complacency - I have flown in the same airspace for about a year and have never encountered gliders in that area and it led me to be less diligent. Approach/Tower was not aware of the glider activity and therefore did not issue any advisories; also leading to a false sense of security. The glider was climbing and has a small cross-section unless it has a wing up/down towards you. This made it difficult to discern from other ground clutter. The glider base is located just outside the Class-D airspace which increases the possibility of encountering gliders while maneuvering/holding outside the airspace.The only way to prevent a recurrence is for aircraft operating in the vicinity of ZZZ to be more aware of possible glider activity. Since gliders are not required to have radios/transponders in this area; the only way for ATC to provide advisories is for other aircraft to report the glider activity so warnings can be given to other aircraft. Personally; I will be much more aware of glider activity in that area and will work with ATC if a vector will put me in the area of a glider port; regardless of if it appears active or not.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported having an NMAC with a glider while descending to land.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: ATC advised I was off course from the route given in the IFR clearance. After advising off course; ECHOE Intersection/V-70 was given for the course correction because I had passed PSX and was heading to EFD instead of DELVE intersection. During the time of the deviation; I was checking ATIS and loading the procedure to 17R into EFD. Also; I was using the moving map on my Garmin GMX 200 display. Apparently either the Garmin GNS 530W or the Garmin GMX 200 system froze and stopped the moving map. Not sure which unit stopped working; thus causing me to fly thru the PSX fix while setting up for the approach into EFD.  Garmin suggested reloading all my navigation cards.  Jeppesen allowed me to reload the data to both my navigation cards.During the time I was in contact with ATC; I originally gave them the incorrect information on our route because I misunderstood his question about the route. After the second query from ATC; I was able to give him the information and the problem was corrected. I did not query the controller afterwards because he seemed very busy.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a malfunction of either the Garmin GMX 200 or Garmin GNS 530W in which the moving map froze resulting in navigating off course.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 99
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure; partial electrical failure was experienced. Landing gear was unable to fully extend given that the landing gear is electrically driven. The gear was manually extended. I entered the traffic pattern; followed AIM recommended and local lost comm. procedures; and landed uneventfully. The aircraft was towed to the ramp given the uncertainty of the gear being fully locked in the DOWN position.




Synopsis: C310 pilot reports partial electrical failure on departure rendering normal gear extension in operative and causing lost communication. The gear is manually extended and the flight returns to the departure airport using AIM lost communication. procedures.