elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was pilot monitoring on descent. I noticed the stabilizer trim wheel began chattering as the aircraft was being slowed for our approach. First Officer stated he was going to disconnect autopilot to check trim condition. After autopilot disconnect; he stated that trim was not responding normally using his trim switch. I took control of the aircraft to attempt my trim switch. Again; non-normal operation; as the trim wheel would partially respond then would chatter. First Officer handled ATC communications and began reading from the QRH. I was very occupied in controlling the aircraft; turning onto final with a 50 knot crosswind; and configuring for landing. In response to First Officer reading the QRH; I disconnected the autothrottles; and he disconnected the trim motors using the stab cutout switches. We both attempted to move the trim wheel manually with no success. I asked the First Officer to [advise] Approach Control at the same time as they gave us a frequency change to Tower. First Officer [advised] the Tower and they cleared us to land. The aircraft was configured for landing and was completely controllable with a minor out of trim condition so I chose to continue to landing; which was uneventful.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported loss of both electric and manual stabilizer trim on descent.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I was] receiving dual instruction in my new PA18. Departed and proceeded southwest doing air work; steep turns; stalls; slow flight. [We] went to a nearby dirt strip to practice full stop landings and takeoffs. My Instructor; asked us to do a mid field into a left downwind for Runway 26. I asked if he would like to demonstrate the first landing; he declined and said 'I will follow you through on the controls.' He asked for an approach with one notch of flaps and to come over the threshold at 50 MPH; I complied. As I bled off airspeed and we touched down on centerline; under control and in the remains of the touchdown zone; nose high. Soft landing and we were rolling out as I brought the stick full aft as soon as the tail wheel was in firm contact the aircraft yawed hard to the right. I applied full left rudder and got no response. If anything it got worse. We were heading for the brush and trees on the right side and I applied full brakes to stop and we flipped over at approximately 10 MPH. No injures requiring medical attention; substantial damage to aircraft. Neither myself nor the Instructor had right brake on to cause yaw. After inspecting wreckage photos we noticed tail wheel hard to the right and rudder left.




Synopsis: A PA-18's tail wheel was discovered hard right after it flipped over at 10 KTS when the pilot applied full brakes to prevent the aircraft from entering trees following a landing.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After intercepting the localizer for 22L at 2;000 feet MSL (1;960 AGL) and cleared for approach just outside ROSLY; we received instructions from ATC to climb to 2;500 simultaneously with a Traffic Advisory; and then Resolution Advisory from TCAS instructing us to climb. The FO (First Officer) immediately started climbing and I assisted with additional power input as well as calling out the RA instructions. As we reached 2;500 feet approximately 15 - 20 secs after first hearing RA I saw a helicopter fly underneath us at around 300 feet; passing from front left to rear right of aircraft. We were re-cleared for the approach and we landed without further incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported executing a go-around from an approach to Runway 22L at JFK after an near mid-air collision with a helicopter.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: B737-500
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There was a line of moderate to extreme precipitation that stretched across the northern part of the sector. Aircraft were deviating along with the departures that were coming off of MCO that were also deviating. During this time I was giving OJT to my Trainee and it got to the point where I had to eventually take over. Palm Beach Approach kept putting us in and out of hold because their final was saturated and they were also very busy. When they did open back up they wanted 20 miles in trail. This caused me to put a Gulfstream; a PBI lander on a 270 degree heading and giving him a descent to 15;000 FT. A short time later I had a B737 come off of MCO he was heading east for weather. His destination was towards the southeast. Right around this time is when I had to take over for my trainee. As soon as I saw these two aircraft on a converging course I didn't have time to use altitude because I needed 2;000 FT separation because the altimeters were below 29.92. I turned the B737 to a heading of 180. And I put the Gulfstream on a heading of 360. By then the conflict alert went off. I think there should have been better pre-planning between management and TMU. I think if we would have had better in-trail or more spacing I think this could have been prevented; taking into consideration the line of weather that was stretching across the state.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller experienced a loss of separation event when traffic and weather introduced complications difficult to overcome; the reporter listing the lack of pre-planning between management and the TMU as a causal factor.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Trainee
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Simulated engine failure down to ZZZ everything was smooth. Performed a go around; passing 900 feet; sudden reduction in power and strong vibrations. Leveled off at 1100 feet; able to maintain 100 FPM climb with max power achieving 2100 RPM. Called ZZZ1 Approach and told them we had a power reduction; they offered a landing at the ZZZ1 but declined. Didn't know how long the engine would remain running. Checked oil temp; normal. Checked oil pressure in the green; fuel was good; mags on both fuel selector on both. Landed at ZZZ with no issues. Engine produced strong vibrations at low rpm. Shut down on airport and pushed back. ZZZ Airport NOTAM'd closed.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Flight Instructor flying a C-172 aircraft encountered engine power reduction after go-around.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Weather was light snow visibility 2sm braking action advisories in effect departure runway 22 conditions 5 5 5 wind varied from 5 to 7 knots of tail wind. Call to dispatch to see if they could talk EWR into switching runways; he said that he would try. I have operated out of EWR for years and it is only recently that the field seems to operate take off and landings with sustained and significant tail winds.These winds are usually within the operating specs of the aircraft but certainly reduce the margin of safety. So far there has been no 'specific' explanation as to why we are operating in this configuration. Once again I have a very long history of experience at this airport and it is only recently (4 months) that this has occurred. Any information would be appreciated.




Synopsis: Captain reported that EWR policy has changed to tolerate departures with tailwind conditions even when braking action reports are present.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On mid-level climb out from ZZZ. Preceding departure traffic was 20 plus miles ahead and climbing; but at a slower airspeed. LA Center cleared us to FL340 and slow to 280 knots; we were registering approximately 315 knots for the climb. The airplane pitched rapidly for FL340 as it slowed and pitched to attain 280 knots climb speed. Center then requested we level and stop climb at FL180. We received this radio request as the airplane was passing 18;500 ft. and climbing rapidly towards FL340! We advised we were passing and thru FL180; on our way for FL340. Center requested we descend back to FL180. We leveled at FL190 and began the descent back to FL180 as quickly as safely possible. We then proceeded at FL180 for a short period of time; and were then re-cleared to FL340. Nothing adverse was observed and no TCAS warnings or resolutions occurred. We proceeded to ZZZ1 without further incident. This report is to establish the sequence of events; should there be any issues with our compliance with ATC instructions. ATC unreasonable level off request; and non-timely manner of request delivery to flight-crew. Note rate of aircraft climb to clearance altitude; and deliver level off change requests in a timely; attainable; reasonable performance fashion for flight-crew.




Synopsis: B767 pilot reported being unable to comply with an ATC request; resulting in an altitude deviation.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
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 on a personal cross country flight [when] I spotted another aircraft at the same altitude which appeared to either be flying away from or towards me. After a few moments it became apparent that the aircraft was on a head on collision course so I altered my heading approximately 20 degrees to the right to provide adequate separation. In an effort to make my aircraft more visible I also turned my landing lights on. Initially my course change appeared to resolve the conflict; however at approximately 1/4 mile distance the other aircraft turned towards me again on a collision course. At that moment I executed an aggressive right hand turn; however when I did the other aircraft turned hard left. I lost sight of the other aircraft due to my bank angle however; when I regained visual contact; the other aircraft was approximately 20 feet to my rear left and had our speeds not been so closely matched would have likely struck the left side of my aircraft. I could clearly see only one male occupant and it did not appear as though he saw me. After the incident I continued on my original course and made a traffic advisory on 123.0 and attempted to establish contact with the other aircraft but did not get a reply. Approximately two hours later on my return flight while overflying the same area I saw the same aircraft so made several circles well above and took several pictures to establish its identity. The aircraft was making continuous low passes over the ground and appeared to be searching for something. After viewing the images I discovered the words 'State Patrol' painted on the tops of the wings and could read its 'N' number. After continuing to my destination I was able to establish radio contact with the pilot after several attempts on 123.0 using his tail number.




Synopsis: While on a cross country flight a C-172 pilot suffered an NMAC with another aircraft later identified as a State Patrol aircraft.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAN.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Light Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was advised of airport conditions as well as the work in progress on the runway and was cleared for the VOR 26 approach and told to change to advisory frequency and report cancellation on the frequency.  About 15-20 minutes later the pilot called and informed me he was in the hold over ADQ VOR at 2;000 ft but had not completed the approach or the missed approach.  I double checked the approach plate and immediately issued a climb to 3;700 ft.  Once the aircraft reported reaching 3;700 ft I issued a holding clearance as depicted on the approach plate for the missed approach holding pattern with an EFC and probed for more information which he provided.  The aircraft eventually ended up diverting back to ZZZ due to the poor runway conditions. The pilot needed to inform us of his intentions prior to entering the hold he was not authorized.




Synopsis: ZAN Controller reported aircraft was below the MVA during missed approach hold. Controller reported incorrectly aircraft cleared VOR approach executing MA was not authorized holding.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAKX.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center OAKX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On descent into OAKB we were assigned a speed close to minimum clean speed and given a vector for 'Traffic and approach.'  During descent to FL 240 as cleared; First Officer responded crisply and smoothly to a climb RA (I reported it to ATC) the Controller said it was an aircraft doing Mach 1.  Closest vertical separation to traffic was 700 feet.  We were clear of conflict by FL250 and told to then maintain FL250.  The subsequent vectors; approach; and landing were normal.The Controller alluded to the fact that at Mach 1 the aircraft had ballooned above his cleared altitude on level off.  We could neither see the traffic nor hear him on our VHF assigned frequency.  I acknowledge that traffic separation in a combat area must be challenging at best.  The Controller seemed to handle the conflict smoothly and professionally.  If further lateral separation than currently used is possible; it might mitigate some of these traffic conflicts. What a great tool TCAS is!




Synopsis: Pilot reports of an RA caused by an aircraft going Mach 1 that went through its assigned altitude.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VPZ.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF VPZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft being test flown after annual inspection.  Preflight and taxi to Runway 27 uneventful.  ASOS reported winds 240/8.  Shortly after takeoff heard following comment on UNICOM.  'Porter County what's up with the aircraft on 27?'  I queried Porter County and they informed me 27 was closed.  I completed the flight and landed uneventfully on Runway 18.  I discovered the following: 27 had been NOTAMed closed for the day due to surveying.  There was no mention of the closure on ASOS.  Porter County personnel informed me they are not allowed to put that info on ASOS.  Lessons learned: ASOS is not the same as ATIS.  While the closure would have been verbalized on ATIS; it was not on ASOS.  Continue to check daily NOTAMs - even on a clear VFR day at a familiar airport.  There were no signs; construction; or personnel in sight on the closed runway; and the runway was still closed.  Do a radio check before initial taxi.  This would have given Porter County an additional opportunity to inform me 27 was closed for the day.  Action:  Porter County informed me they had multiple aircraft attempt to use 27 that day; including the local flight school.  I understand the requirement to check NOTAMs.  I feel Porter County should be allowed to also put that information on ASOS.  If an aircraft had to use 27 quickly for an emergency landing in most cases they would listen to ASOS and not have time to check NOTAMs.




Synopsis: A pilot took off for a short flight from VPZ Runway 27 which was NOTAMed closed; but he had not checked NOTAMs and noted he monitored ASOS which the airport was prohibited from using as an airport status notification tool.