elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Traffic at Sector 34 was very busy and it required complete attention to keep up. There was a considerable amount of sector to sector coordination to accomplish. There were multiple ATCSCC (Air Traffic Control System Command Center) initiatives out which gave us a higher than usual and unsafe traffic volume. This higher than usual and unsafe traffic volume combined with the agency's de facto policy of not leaving sectors combined when there is not an inherent need to have them split caused this error. De-combining sectors unnecessarily does not provide the experience required to maintain proficiency in all types and volumes of traffic. The radar controller was overwhelmed and had anxiety about meeting a crossing restriction per the ZTL LOA. This led to him taking unnecessary risks which ultimately led to a loss event.1. Stop de-combining sectors and allow controllers to maintain and train on all types and volumes of traffic.2. Dissolve traffic management units and the ATCSCC because they are wildly ineffective at maintaining safe volumes or managing traffic flow in an efficient and orderly manner. Flow initiatives should not cause errors; they should help prevent them.3. In the event Traffic Management is continued to allow to exist; do not put out routes that will increase volume without an AFP (Airspace Flow Program) in place.4. Instead of traffic management controllers talking about non ATC related business; laughing; taking care of personal business and carrying on (I have heard all of these happening on recorded lines and witnessed them in the Flow Management Area); they should be proactively managing the rate at which airplanes enter each sector and the order in which they do so to reduce congestion and organize traffic flow.5. If the next center has miles in trail restrictions; the last sector in the center should not be required to achieve this in trail restriction from three different streams and blend them into one. All affected miles in trail aircraft should enter the center at the same fix.




Synopsis: ZJX Controller reports vaguely of a loss of separation; but his major complaint is about the lack of work and planning that he thinks the TMU (Traffic Management Unit) does.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
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: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Took off of Runway 25 at ZZZ. Made left turn toward ZZZ1 climbing to 2;500 MSL and leveled off. Went to lean the mixture and the mixture cable broke engine quit. Turned back to ZZZ. Landed on a road. No injuries or damage to the aircraft.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported the mixture cable broke at first mixture adjustment and resulted in a loss of engine power and forced landing.
Date: 201602
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Smoke and burning wires reported in aft bay.

Callback: The reporter stated that the burning wires were discovered while accomplishing a walk around the aircraft while the APU was running. The smoke from the wires was located in an area behind the APU.The reporter stated that there was no visible damage to the aircraft and Maintenance was alerted. Maintenance removed the APU and corrected any issues associated with the burning wires. The aircraft was out of service for several days.



Synopsis: LR45 pilot reported smoke and burning wires in aft bay.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Encountered severe turbulence over the Sierra Nevada's at FL230. Was on RAZZR arrival into SJC. Auto pilot went off line 3 times. Hand to hand fly the rest of the arrival. Turned off the arrival towards the San Joaquin valley. Tried climbing but was limited by traffic. 230 was highest altitude available. Turbulence subsided once over the valley and away from the foothills. Gained 200 plus feet at worst.


Second narrative: SJC RAZRR4 arrival at FL250 slightly south of STSHH intersection we encountered severe turbulence that caused a 200 ft. loss of altitude and temporary loss of control of the aircraft. The autopilot failed and the master warning was triggered. We advised ATC with a PIREP and turned westbound to get away from the mountains. This arrival with a section that flies along the windward side of the mountains should be avoided during inclement weather. It's very likely that icing and turbulence would be worse during weather events.


Synopsis: Fractional flight crew reported encountering severe turbulence at FL230 over the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Driven Pump
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine fuel pump failure; erratic situation on electric fuel pump. Shut the engine and feather. Inspection revealed fuel pump adapter sheared. Inspection of maintenance record found annual expired 10 days earlier.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Cessna 402 experienced an engine problem that required the engine to be shut down in flight. Following a successful landing; it was discovered that the fuel pump had failed and that the annual inspection had expired.
Date: 201703
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The afternoon 'wind' routes to JFK have 4 connection points to chose from for ZLA departures.  The overnight 'wind' mid-routes only have two connection points for ZLA departures SPI and KK54E.  Those two points are only 53 nm apart.   Due to convective weather in the Western Mississippi Valley; I needed to file [2] flights on a more northerly routing.  FOD [Fort Dodge Regional] is the most northerly routing from the afternoon wind routes but is not offered on the overnight wind routings.  ATC re-routed back on the published mid-routes which brings my flight right through the convective weather. ATC does not take into account enroute weather when publishing mandatory re-routes.  ATC needs to take into account enroute weather off more choices for the overnight mid-routes to both JFK and EWR.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported the ATC issued 'wind routes' required for filing a JFK arrival conflicted with weather the Dispatcher was trying to avoid.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Balloon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Lighter-Than-Air
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Successful balloon flight. Several attempts were made to land; however; the balloon was blown off course. Landed balloon in residential area successfully. Regrettably; a small amount of wind pushed the balloon between two houses. The balloon was caught on a Direct TV antenna. It took several minutes and attempts to break free from the structure. The balloon flew another 2 or 3 miles landing near [a] high school. Upon successfully wrapping up the flight; all passengers and crew plus pilot were unharmed.




Synopsis: Balloon pilot reported changing weather conditions resulted in a loss of control and contact with object while landing.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On initial descent for ZZZ; we received a 'WOW INPUT' (weight-on-wheels) caution message accompanied by a 'PROX SYS FAULT' (proximity system fault) status message on the cockpit EICAS displays. We were advised by the QRH for this particular failure that our nose wheel steering may not be available upon landing.Not knowing whether or not our nose wheel steering would be available and in what direction our nose wheel might be pointing upon touchdown; led me to [expedite] our arrival into ZZZ. I advised the flight attendant of the situation and told her to secure the cabin early. Upon touchdown the nose wheel steering had indeed failed; and we were able to clear the runway and taxi (using differential braking) to the gate lead-in line whereupon the station met us with a tug for the final tow-in.




Synopsis: Flight crew experienced a system failure which rendered nose wheel steering inoperative.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B BWI
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We received CPDLC clearance of TERPZ6 RNAV departure; except climb to 4000 feet. During departure; at around 2500 feet; Departure gave us the following clearance: 'Climb via the TERPZ6 departure.' To me; this is a very confusing clearance since we previously had a clearance limit of 4000 feet; and no additional altitudes were mentioned. As we approached the 4000 foot limit and began to level off; and of course after we had discussed between the two of us what we were really expected to do (level at 4000 feet or continue the climb to 17;000 FT); we did what were are trained to do and queried the controller for clarification. Of course we were instructed to continue the climb to 17;000 FT (as per the RNAV top altitude instructions); which we complied with. I just think this is a horrible clearance! As pilots; we are used to hearing and reading back an altitude; a frequency; a heading; etc. and this clearance leaves room for ambiguity and misunderstanding and potentially doing the wrong thing and ending up with a violation. After the fact; I consulted the FOM; Clearances [chapter]; and found that the FAA clearance of 'Climb via SID' means: 'Comply with all published restrictions up to the charted top altitude.' (A handy piece of information to have memorized; along with the other 5;000 pages in the FOM; just in case you get - what I consider - a vague clearance!) Now look at the ICAO clearance: 'Climb via SID to altitude'. Now how clear is that!? I don't even have to read the ATC expectations to know what to do! I don't have to memorize this page in the FOM! I don't have the entire FOM memorized! FAA needs to adopt the ICAO clearance format! Much less ambiguous!




Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew member reported confusion resulted when cleared to 'climb via' an RNAV departure following 'climb via' with an intermediate altitude.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna 152
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the Front Line Manager (FLM) providing a certification skill check on Local Control. Aircraft X; H25B; departed [airport]. Aircraft Y; C152; 6NW VFR southbound transition. Traffic was issued to Aircraft Y and he had the Hawker in sight off the departure end. Traffic was issued to the Hawker and he was looking. Trainee verified the Cessna still had the Hawker in sight about 2 miles apart. Traffic was again issued to the Hawker; advising him that Cessna had him in sight. Hawker was still looking so I motioned with my hand that the trainee needed to do more. Unexpectedly she transferred communication of the Hawker to TRACON. It appeared on the Tower Display Workstation that the Hawker passed under the Cessna before continuing to climb. I ended the skill check and took over. [TRACON] called over a few moments later and advised the Hawker responded to an RA. I contacted the Cessna before he left the airspace and asked if he saw the Hawker pass underneath. The Cessna said the Hawker passed behind him. After I was off position; I pulled the Falcon replay and it showed the Hawker pass behind the Cessna; but only 1/3NM lateral and 100 feet vertical. The Hawker descended 200 feet and returned to his climb shortly thereafter.Based on the previous performance of this trainee; I thought by motioning with my hands she would understand that she needs to do more to ensure separation. The transfer of communication caught me off guard. I've never seen her transfer a conflict before. I always try not to speak during a skill check unless the trainee is missing something or safety is compromised. In hindsight; I should've taken over and ensured the separation myself.




Synopsis: Tower Front Line Manager reported of a loss of separation during a skill check on local position. Developmental did not fix a separation problem and switched both aircraft to Departure Control.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CRP.TRACON, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C CRP
ATC / advisory: TRACON CRP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I took the position with Aircraft X (UAV) being released from Navy Corpus Christ; [XXX1] departure; climbing to FL030. Aircraft departed; and I observed him climb to FL027. I restored automatic releases to NGP Tower. Then I saw Aircraft X descending and turning south. I observed Aircraft X's Mode C indicate FL015. No response to radio calls. I called NGP Tower and canceled automatic releases. Re-established radio communication with Aircraft X and pilot advised he had maneuvered and descended to avoid clouds. Aircraft X was then climbed to FL150. Aircraft X then advised he was working on his 2nd radio; and would hold until it was ready. Aircraft X was still holding at time of my relief. Pilot of Aircraft X should request a turn/altitude descent.




Synopsis: CRP TRACON Controller reports of an aircraft that climbed almost to assigned altitude; but then was observed descending 1;200 FT below observed altitude due to weather.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were] flying LTOWN 6 RNAV arrival into MEM Runway 36R. [I] complied with all altitude and airspeed restrictions during descent. The last airspeed restriction is shown at DASAC at 210 KTS. [We] complied with that airspeed restriction. After passing CLARK and heading south on the arrival started to slow down to 180 KTS anticipating possibly an early turn to 36R due to not seeing any traffic on the TCAS Also going to 36R. Memphis Approach Control called us and asked what our airspeed was. At this time we were at 180 KTS. We were then told to speed up to 210 KTS with which we complied. Remainder of flight [was] uneventful.I guess my big question is on this arrival after the last speed restriction at DASAC is when can we slow down? The way I understand it; if they want us to maintain 210 KTS one or two fixes later on the arrival they need to tell me this. Maybe I should have been more pro-active and asked approach if I could slow down. What would be helpful is if these arrivals stated to maintain the last assigned arrival speed.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain cleared via the LTOWN STAR to MEM reduced his airspeed to 180 KTS in anticipation of an early turn to final for Runway 36R. Approach Control remonstrated him for not complying with the last charted airspeed of 210 KTS at DASAC.