elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 125
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On descent in to ZZZ1; level at 3;000 feet; ATC said 'Use caution multiple VFR targets in your vicinity'We had multiple targets on our TCAS; one in particular stood out at 12 o'clock and a few hundred feet below. I even mentioned to the FO (First Officer) 'We might get an RA' We received the traffic alert followed by the 'climb' RA and immediately complied. Autopilot was disconnected and the Pilot Flying (Captain) initiated a climb; Pilot Monitoring (FO) told ATC 'responding to an RA'. Total altitude gain was 400 feet.After receiving the 'Clear of Conflict' message from the TCAS; we returned to 3;000 feet and notified ATC. They issued a subsequent descent and heading; and did not seem to have any issue with our maneuvering. The traffic in question was spotted during the RA response. During the debrief; the crew thought they handled the issue appropriately and that all safety margins were easily maintained throughout the entire maneuver. ATC was notified in a timely manner; and no other issues seemed to stand out. The altitude gain was marginal; and the control of the aircraft or separation with conflicting traffic was never in question.




Synopsis: Corporate Captain reported deviating for an RA event.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was working the local position which is only working the XX's. I received a release on Aircraft X on a 175 heading IFR. I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff on RWY XXL; issued RWY heading until advised and gave a 'caution wake turbulence' for the B737 departing off RWY XXR in a right turn out. Also on my frequency were Aircraft Z and Aircraft Y both inbound to RWY XXR for landing (Aircraft Z short final XXR and Aircraft Y approx. 4 miles behind.)When Aircraft X got airborne; I advised them to 'turn left heading 175' which they acknowledged. I then keyed the [tower of the adjacent airport] line to advise that a slow climbing aircraft was departing ZZZ and heading southbound over their airport (this was recently in a briefing that we need to do that). As I was hanging up with [the adjacent airport's tower]; the next thing I heard was 'Aircraft X; we need to land now'. I observed aircraft holding in position on RWY XYR and one about to touchdown on RWY XYL so I didn't think that was going to be an option. I asked Aircraft X 'which runway would you like to land'? Aircraft X advised they would like to turn around and land on RWY XZL. Aircraft Z was clearing RWY XXR (opposite XZL) so I cleared Aircraft X to land on either RWY XZL or XZR; whichever he wanted. I then sent Aircraft Y around on a 3 Mile final; issued RWY heading and 4;500 feet (and then climbed him to 7;000 feet over the airport). Aircraft X landed safely on RWY XZL and exited at the end. They advised they lost 2 cylinders after departure but was no longer requiring assistance. I'm not sure if I re-issued the wind when I cleared him to land; which I wish I would have done. I issued it when I cleared him for takeoff though and it was the same wind for the most part.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported an aircraft just departed and had to return due to losing 2 cylinders.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X on WAPPL2 Arrival southeast of IAH on vector for sequence into HOU; Aircraft Y on RITAA1 Departure climbing utilizing prearranged coordination. I'm on Gulf Arrival and did not inform South Departure that Aircraft X was vectored left of course to follow aircraft on BAYYY2 Arrival. This is a 2 part failure in the system; prearranged coordination should not impact aircraft in Gulf Arrivals airspace and if time permits Gulf Arrival must inform sectors utilizing prearranged coordination of aircraft deviating from arrival routes.Gulf Arrival must inform sectors utilizing prearranged coordination of aircraft deviating off the arrival in Gulf Arrival's airspace. Sectors utilizing prearranged coordination must not impact aircraft in the sectors they are climbing into.




Synopsis: ATC reported issues with prearranged coordination on Gulf Arrivals.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Aircraft component: TCAS Software
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: As we leveled at 8;000 feet approaching LUVLY; the TCAS RA commanded a climb to avoid a rapidly ascending aircraft.  We complied with the RA and climbed to 8;250 feet for approximately 10 seconds.  We informed approach that we were complying with an RA.  We subsequently returned to 8;000 feet.


Second narrative: On FLIPR arrival into MIA level at 8;000 FT; ATC called traffic climbing out of MIA to 7;000 FT.  TCAS issued an RA for a gentle climb.  We complied with the TCAS RA; notified ATC and climbed to about 8;250 FT.  Upon TCAS 'Clear of conflict' message; we returned to the assigned altitude.  Aircraft on climb out leveled at 7;000 FT as expected and at no time was there a loss of separation or was safety compromised.If the aircraft on departure that are being vectored under the arrival aircraft have a sufficiently [high] rate of climb; then TCAS will issue an alert or a resolution based on the rate of climb.  Aircrews should be advised that reducing the rate of climb to 1;000 FPM or less during the last 1;000 FT of the climb out will prevent this from occurring.


Synopsis: Flight Crew describes a TCAS RA event while arriving into MIA caused by the climb rate of a departing aircraft leveling 1;000 feet below.  The reporters aircraft climbed 250 feet to comply with the RA then returned to 8;000 feet.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-200
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Rudder
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This flight was a demonstration flight under Part 91; the aircraft was signed of by Maintenance; preflight was performed and the airplane was found safe to fly; the flight was completed without any abnormalities and successfully. The Maintenance Base found after the flight that part of the rudder was missing; would we have any indications during the flight of such failure we would declare an emergency and return to the airport as soon as possible.

Callback: Reporter stated the aircraft was coming out of long term storage and apparently a part came off the aircraft in flight and hit the rudder causing the reported damage. The aircraft has been repaired and transferred to the new owners.



Synopsis: B767 Captain is informed by Maintenance after a demonstration flight for a prospective buyer that part of the rudder is missing. No problems were noted by the crew during the flight.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Second day in a row [with this problem in the same aircraft]. Climbing through 11;500 FT; well after flap retraction; we received a 'Slat Fail' caution message. I was pilot flying; so I had the Captain reference any immediate action items. There are none; so he went ahead with the QRH checklist and I flew and manned the radios. At this point we were within 60 miles of [destination].At conclusion of the checklist we determined that with a slat fail 0; we will only be able to get flaps 2 due to system logic. So we once again considered diverting to airports nearby that had adequate runway length. This left [several] options which we gave to Dispatch. Dispatch; however; wanted us to return to [departure airport]. We worked with ATC for return and declared an emergency at this time. We were then cleared direct the outer marker and landed without incident.The day prior we had this same aircraft; and at that time it had an MEL for 'Flap Lo Rate.' That was fixed overnight; but this 'Slat Fail' came back. Looking through the maintenance log upon arrival; there were many pages of write ups including the phrase 'Slats Fail' caution message. Recurring problem for this aircraft.




Synopsis: ERJ-190 First Officer reported 'Slat Fail' message that resulted in return to departure station for a flaps 2 landing. Reporter stated this was a recurring problem in this particular aircraft.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHF.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON ORF
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On approach into PHF at 7;500 feet MSL; a drone in close proximity (about 500 feet) flying in the opposite direction to our flight was sighted by the Captain (Pilot Monitoring). It was a white quadcopter. No evasive action was required and the sighting was immediately reported to the controller by the Captain. Reported it to ATC for their information and for the benefit of other traffic in the area.




Synopsis: First Officer reported encountering a drone while on final approach to Newport News airport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DLF.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the overseeing pilot on an IFR flight plan filed in my name. The flying pilot was a private pilot; multi engine rated; non IFR pilot. We filed IFR in case an approach would be needed at DRT. I was programming the GPS while we were cruising at an assigned altitude of 5;000 FT. The other pilot was flying with the autopilot engaged; (I thought). Suddenly he noticed altitude was about 5;400 FT and started correcting. About then Laughlin called and asked to verify we were still at 5;000 FT. He said we were correcting from 5;500 FT back to 5;000 FT. I had realized then that he had been following what I was doing on the GPS instead of watching the airplane closer. In effect we were both heads down on the GPS; while the aircraft drifted up. I have to attribute this partly to distraction from automation; partly to a lack of training on part of the crew in dividing responsibilities; partly to being too focused to one thing instead of dividing attention between programming and supervision of aircraft/other crew; and partly to diminished [alertness due to] fatigue. My wife had been getting sick the night before; and I had gotten up several times in the night; breaking sleep. I didn't feel that bad when I arrived at the airport in the morning; however I did notice on the first leg I had frequent yawning and thought processes seemed slow; etc. That's when I knew I was more tired than I had realized.




Synopsis: A BE58 crew failed to maintain altitude awareness while programming their GPS and the aircraft gradually climbed 500 FT above their cleared altitude.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: X50.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G X50
ATC / advisory: CTAF X50
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While in the pattern at X50 in C172 for our third landing; on short final; another C172 held short of the runway on the taxiway. Noticing the aircraft [we] made yet another position report at a half mile from the numbers 'Massey traffic; Skyhawk; short Final Runway 36; Massey'. Traffic holding short then proceeded to back taxi south on Runway 36 for a Runway 36 departure while turning onto the runway; then made radio call AFTER rolling onto Runway 36. At the point we were in the final phase to land and over the numbers near 50 FT AGL. Instructor called for go-around and student initiated go-around. Flight instructor took over flight controls and made a climbing right turn and contacted the other aircraft directly as we were able to see the tail numbers and advised them of the situation. We made two more laps in the pattern with this traffic behind us. We continued to make radio calls for upwind crosswind; downwind and final for Runway 36 while the other aircraft made one when abeam the numbers on the first lap after his takeoff. [This event involved] collision avoidance; situational awareness; non-towered airport operations and radio procedure; general safety.




Synopsis: A C172 Instructor reported a near miss while on short final to CTAF X50 because another C172 pilot was not following CTAF communications procedures and taxied onto the runway.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LVK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LVK
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was an OJTI (On The Job Instructor) on Local Control and the trainee cleared Aircraft X for takeoff. A few seconds later I observed aircraft X attempting to takeoff on a taxiway. I took over the frequency and told the aircraft to stop. The aircraft picked up the speed and did not respond. I instructed the aircraft to stop 3 more times. The aircraft finally came to a stop without further incident.Pilots need to be familiar with airport markings to prevent incidents like this. I suggest FSDO to be proactive and possibly enforcing age restrictions and stricter licensing requirements; i.e.; be able to see and hear and listen to instructions. He was not able to see his license to read us the information when asked. He stated he did not hear our numerous attempts to stop him. Pilots like these pose a great threat to the National Airspace System (NAS) and need to be looked at closely.


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


Synopsis: LVK Tower Controllers and a pilot reported an aircraft began its takeoff roll from a taxiway instead of the runway and when aborting its takeoff taxied without a clearance five feet away from another taxiing aircraft.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Flying Visual approach. Gusty wind conditions; last reported Tower wind 28024G36; final landing configuration; Reference 168; max Flap 30 speed 171. Disconnected Autopilot and Auto throttles turning final; about 500 ft. On visual and FMC generated glide path; received several 'Too Low Terrain' warnings from GPWS. Verified Aircraft configuration and terrain was not a factor; continued and landed without incident.After landing; with flap handle in the 30 detent; flap indicator was just outside the 30 white band; short of the band. Flaps had been verified in the 30 detent and white band on landing checklist. Cycled flaps on taxi in and found normal operation; [I] believe gust on short final triggered flap load relief. No overspeed warnings received in cockpit; and no overspeed observed in cockpit.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that a GPWS Terrain warning on a visual approach was apparently as a result of flap displacement due to wind gusts.