elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Failed
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: Human-Machine Interface; Fatigue; Distraction
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 As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On climbout lost flight instruments ADI HSI both sides and navigation capability.  Was on standby instruments.  I took the aircraft from FO and requested priority handling. With help from ATC.  Landed VFR safely at ZZZ.  Found the IRUs not properly aligned.With constant interruptions preparing for the flight by flight attendants; fuel slips; security forms; I failed to properly align the IRUs.  I usual devote my attention to this process and can only imagine that I got interrupted.  I was also tired.  Everything seemed normal on taxi out.  I was able to update the position at the end of the runway.  I had a First Officer brand new to the airplane.  Just finished IOE.  Ultimately it was my fault I take full responsibility.  I feel terrible about it.  Pilot error on my part.




Synopsis: B737-300 Captain reported they lost flight instruments on both sides and navigation capability during climbout resulting in a diversion.  Captain stated the IRUs were not properly aligned and cited multiple distractions and fatigue as contributing factors.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Enroute FL370 approximately 150 NM north of ZZZ began smelling unusual (smoky) odor in cockpit. Immediately donned O2 [mask] and queried flight attendants who also had noticed smell. Declared emergency; requested diversion to ZZZ and began ATC assigned descent to FL240 (First Officer flying). Completed Smoke; Fire or Fumes QRH Checklist. During descent one Flight Attendant mentioned local area wildfires. We asked ATC if other aircraft in area had reported smoke odors. He queried four other aircraft. One said they had smelled faint odor and the other three said; 'No'. At that point; well into descent; we elected to continue to ZZZ. Landed overweight at minimum sink rate. Upon gate arrival we were advised by ZZZ Station Personnel that they had a prior diversion for the same reason. Called Dispatch. They had another [aircraft] south of ZZZ who called about smoke smell. I suggested that it might be a good idea to add a message to Flight Plans regarding the issue.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: B757-200 flight crew noticed 'smoky' odor in cockpit at FL370. Crew confirmed odor with flight attendants; declared an emergency; and diverted. Area wildfires found to be the cause of odor.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Working South Local Control and had a pre-coordinated survey aircraft (a PA31) flying grid patterns that were taking him east and west across the north side of the airport and across the finals. I had already had to ask the PA31 to do one 360 turn off the grid to get clear of a Runway 11 arrival when this event occurred. After resuming the grid run; the PA31 was flying east at 2;500 FT and towards the Runway 12L final. A B737 was then inbound for Runway 12L from the northwest descending out of 3;000. I issued traffic to the PA31 and he reported the B737 in sight and that he would maintain visual separation with that traffic. I also issued the PA31 traffic to the B737 and told him that the PA31 was maintaining visual separation with him. The 2 aircraft continued to converge and I again told the PA31 to maintain visual separation and he agreed. As targets began to merge; it was apparent that the PA31 was not going to change altitude or direction. The B737 descended to pass beneath the PA31 when at a better than normal rate. After the B737 landed; he wanted to pass along his displeasure with the PA31 and the entire operation that had occurred. The PA31 was still on the frequency and I asked him if he heard the complaint. He responded that he did. That was the last of the conversation. The PA31 was asked to find a different set of grid lines to work other than the ones he was flying. He moved his grid pattern further south and stopped flying over the finals. The bigger problem here was the acceptance of visual separation by the PA31 and then the subsequent; almost refusal; to deviate from the grid to avoid the traffic that was issued. It did not appear from looking out the window; that the PA31 ever made an attempt to maneuver away from the B737 and that the B737 had to provide the separation even though he had been told that the PA31 was maintaining visual separation from him. I really don't know what to recommend other than a stern talking to by FSDO to the PA31 pilot? In the future; I will be turning this PA31 away from the traffic and not give him the option to visually separate himself.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a conflict when traffic conducting a survey operation agreed to maintain visual separation with an inbound air carrier; but continued on the grid pattern requiring the air carrier to initiate evasive action/s.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Heavy Transport; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Ice/Rain Protection System
Component problem: Failed
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: Workload; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Began our initial descent into [destination]; having left FL350 for FL280. While level at FL280 and preparing for descent into known icing we selected Eng and Wing Anti-ice ON. We immediately received a level one alert; Air Sys 3 OFF. Center gave us a descent clearance. We declined the descent and asked for holding to work a problem. Completed with QRH and saw the Air System Display page had the 3 Air manifold highlighted in red. As well as red manifold light on overhead air system panel. The QRH level 1 Air Sys 3 OFF consequences stated if the MANF light remains illuminated but the AIR MANF 3 FAIL alert is not displayed (and it wasn't) the air system is depressurized. Consequence; Wing Anti-ice not available.So we knew landing in [destination] not an option. So we SATCOM Dispatch. As we discussed the situation with the dispatcher; she conference in Maintenance Control. He believed we had a manifold 3 failure. We didn't have the Air Manf 3 Fail Alert or the aural waning; but as a precaution reviewed QRH procedure. No action was necessary; for the bleed and isolation valves were closed and manifold pressure was at 5. Consequence; do not repressurize system; avoid known or forecast icing and land at nearest suitable airport. Additionally; ran abnormal non alert operation with less than three bleed sources.Again as a precaution we [advised ATC] and stated we needed to divert to an airport without icing conditions. Dispatch really struggled to find suitable airport. First they said ZZZ; so we informed ATC and headed that way. Then they discovered icing PIREPs. Dispatch asked us to turn around and head south west while they search. We turned around and climbed to FL360. They couldn't make up their mind. Finally; ATC asked if they could help and we told them we were looking to land at airport without icing. They suggested ZZZ1 and we told Dispatch and they agreed; so we diverted and landed at ZZZ1 without incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported after selecting engine and wing anti-ice the crew immediately received an alert indicating a system fail.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: Cessna 140
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was busy working traffic on Donie Low (29). I noticed an aircraft flashing at me from the high side of GGG; Longview Approach heading west. I went back to my traffic and when I returned I noticed that the aircraft went non-RADAR and I accepted the handoff and immediately told myself I shouldn't have taken it because the target was non-RADAR. The aircraft never called me. Longview Approach called and asked if I ever talked to the aircraft and I told them no. They said they no longer had him in RADAR and were not talking to him. I returned to my traffic. I then noticed a VFR target squawking 1200 roughly ten miles to the west of where I lost RADAR on the aircraft; heading in the same direction and at the same altitude. I assumed it was him and that he decided to go on his own; so I removed strip on the aircraft and dropped the target. Improve the RADAR coverage in the area.




Synopsis: ZFW Controller described RADAR coverage issues resulting in lost RADAR targets.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HKS.Airport, MS
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-60 602 Aerostar
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C JAN
ATC / advisory: TRACON JAN
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After being vectored to the final; the approach course for RNAV 34 approach was intercepted; after some zig-zagging from the autopilot. After passing what was assumed to be the FAF; the descent was started. This was to LNAV minimums as the KLN 90B GPS is a non WAAS unit and not user friendly as far as I am concerned. Upon approaching the MDA approach advised that there was a low altitude alert. Upon hearing this I made corrections. This is the first time in [many] years anything like this has ever happened to me. I have been doing recurrent training at least yearly at simulator based training centers. We did break out of the overcast at about 1;200 AGL and good visibility underneath. The problem as I see it was prompted by not looking closely enough at the approach plate. However; when traveling at 150 knots and dealing with a sluggish autopilot along with passengers not understanding the 10;000 feet rule this is often times difficult. I have often complained that approaches are not simple to read and understand anymore. They name fixes with all sorts of hard to read and pronounce names. This and being a non-precision approach made for more room for errors. I had originally wanted to request the ILS to the opposite runway since the wind and traffic made it an option. My point is approaches should be simple to read and interpret like they used to be. Glidepath info can be a life saver along with alert controllers. It would also be helpful if the FAF were made more obvious in the overhead view of the approach and not just on the profile. The modern environment makes single pilot operations increasingly more difficult.




Synopsis: Piper Aerostar pilot reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC while on the RNAV 34 Approach to HKS.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: V1/VR speeds were 150 KIAS. At about 120 KIAS we experienced Master Fire Warning lights with bells but without fire lights in any fire handle or other protected area. We rejected the takeoff and; at about 50 knots during the stop process; the lights and bell stopped by themselves. We had no indication of fire from then on. The tires felt fine as we exited the runway onto a high speed taxiway and stopped in the widest area of the pavement. We held the brakes manually while we ran the checklists for the rejected takeoff and a suspected engine overheat. Because it was a high energy reject we called for the fire department to check out the tires. They informed us that three of the four fuse plugs had melted and deflated the tires. We called for jet stairs and busses and deplaned the passengers once the brakes had cooled enough to be safe. We did a detailed write-up in the logbook and handed the aircraft over to Maintenance. No slides were popped and no injuries were reported to the passengers or crew.


Second narrative: We suspected an engine overheat had occurred so we ran the Engine Overheat Checklist and RTO Checklist. We calculated the brake energy at 25.8 ft/lbs.


Synopsis: The flight crew of a B737-300 rejected their takeoff at high speed when Master Fire Warnings illuminated along with aural warnings but without an identifying source light. Multiple fuse plugs melted requiring the passengers and crews to be bussed to the terminal.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Upon departure we were given a 180 heading to 'stay clear of weather'. We had the weather radar on and weren't indicating any precipitation at all. While we were in the turn to the 180 heading we entered clouds and encountered IMC conditions. Still no precipitation was being indicated on the weather radar. We started to get heavy raindrops on the windshield and almost immediately were jolted with severe turbulence. The turbulence disabled the autopilot; sent several things flying around the cockpit and back of the airplane; and put us into a bit of a turn. Our first priority was making sure we had control of the airplane. Once we got that reestablished we were off course a bit. ATC enquired a bit later where we were navigating to.  Consulted with company and diverted aircraft to [nearby airport] for inspection and maintenance


Second narrative: Upon departure; climbing out on RNAV SID we were given a shortcut to avoid weather. Encountered severe turbulence which triggered Master Caution; Master Warning indicators; loss of autopilot; and momentary upset of aircraft control. Manually took over controls; slowed; and took evasive maneuvers to avoid additional cells. Radar showed nothing on screen. Climbed to assigned altitude and resumed flight.


Synopsis: A Citation crew encountered severe turbulence on departure and diverted for required inspection and maintenance.
Date: 201204
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Due to our company's recently expanded pre-fueling program; I have flown three flights where we arrived at our destination and had to delay landing due to an overweight condition.This was caused by a combination of things: 1. Fueling decisions are based on historical loads (bags and cargo); not actual. In two of the instances; the bag count that was listed for planning was not even close to what was actually loaded. 2. Inadequate flight planning for winds aloft. In all cases; we experienced a tailwind that was significantly higher than what was listed in our flight paperwork (e.g. 49 KTS versus 31 KTS). We did not change altitude or routing from what was filed. The routes in question are mostly a direct route and taking a direct clearance results in a change of less than 5 miles over the entire route. In all cases we were under our MFPTW; METW; and MTOW by significant margins; yet we ended up at the destination in an overweight condition (300 - 500 LBS) for landing. This same issue occurred on additional flights the previous week. My concern is that the crew; using the numbers on the release; will not be aware of the landing weight issue or; discover it late in the flight and cause problems for ATC and other aircraft as they try to burn fuel at a higher rate by slowing down or configuring for landing very early. Also; the company has taken the fuel planning away from the crew and is using inadequate data to come up with fuel loads. As this has only occurred one other time in my career prior to fuel planning responsibility being removed from the Captain; I believe that our pre-fueling program needs to be re-evaluated and brought into the real world. With our passenger loads at record highs already; I think arriving at our destination overweight will only become a more frequent issue and pose additional unnecessary risk to crews and passengers.




Synopsis: A Q400 Captain expressed concern about his airline's newly expanded policy of determining fuel required on an historical basis vice a flight by flight analysis by the Captain; First Officer and Dispatcher.
Date: 201408
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We departed the gate with the assigned ramp fuel on board. Release we received had 9;010 ramp fuel and no alt as none was required. We sat longer in line and burned more during taxi than planned. I got the hold fuel reduced to 200 and cross checked that we still had enough fuel to depart when we were number one. When we departed; we encountered headwinds that were about double the forecast and quickly started eating away at our fuel. We decided to stop in BNA as a precaution and upon talking to the Dispatcher on the ground realized that there was different paperwork in the system with a ramp fuel of 10;100 and an alternate. We were handed the first and fueled off of the first paperwork.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain reported departing the gate with the correct fuel load according to the flight release. Enroute it becomes apparent that insufficient fuel was boarded for the flight and a diversion is initiated. Once on the ground it is discovered that there is a second release in the system that the crew never received; requiring more fuel.