elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other during start
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During employee retraining flight; we initiated left engine hot start checklist; after two attempts engine not starting; we started the right engine in order to preserve battery and letting the left engine cool down. We tried again after a little bit of priming and still did not work; so we conducted flooded start checklist.  That is when I noticed smoke coming out of cowl and cowl flaps area; I then decided to shut down the right engine; directed pilot to get out of the aircraft.  On my way out; I changed fuel selector to off position and took the fire extinguisher just in case.  I directed pilot to inform Operations as well as ZZZ airport authority.  After we got out of the aircraft; I continued to observe smoke then small amount of flame coming out of the left cowl flap area.  I deployed the fire extinguisher into the cowl flap as well as the air inlet area.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor flying PA-44 Aircraft encountered engine fire during engine start.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: When requested by ATC to change frequencies several times we experienced dead frequencies and returned to previous frequencies at least on four different occasions speaking to multiple controllers we were requested to descend to flight level 320; upon leveling at flight level the Controller asked us what flight level we were at and we replied leveling 320; at this point that Controller advised us we were requested to 330; we replied returning 330; at this point the controller advised us to just maintain 320.




Synopsis: HS-125 First Officer reported they had communication issues with ATC while in cruise flight that resulted in an altitude excursion.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: IAI1124/1124A Westwind
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Enroute
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; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working and it was busy. I cleared a Beechjet for the ILS Runway X/Y. While the Beechjet was on the arc; I cleared a Westwind off [the airport] via the SID departure procedure with a void time of 2 minutes. Right before I cleared the Westwind; another aircraft cancelled on about a 1 mile final. I saw [the Westwind] on RADAR departing Runway Y/X and realized it wouldn't work. I told the Beechjet approach clearance was canceled and to climb immediately to FL190. At that time the Beechjet was at 084 and the Westwind was at 064. He didn't respond. I broadcasted for him two more times before he responded by which time it was too late so I just called traffic to each aircraft. My recommendation would be that everybody have a chance to 'warm up' in the Simulator Lab before we get busy. Our area has such low traffic volume all summer long that by the time the busy time comes around we all feel rusty because we haven't worked busy traffic like this for 9 months.


Second narrative: A Beechjet was cleared for the ILS X approach into the airport. A Westwind was released via the SID departure out of the airport. The aircraft was given a void time but the aircraft was not assigned a runway to depart therefore he was a head on conflict with the arrival traffic; the Beechjet. Assign a runway to depart.


Synopsis: Enroute controllers describe an unsafe event involving an IFR departure from a non-towered airport and an inbound IFR aircraft.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Lines; Connectors; Fittings
Component problem: Failed; Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Maintenance crew went over to the gate to bring it back to the hangar and noticed hydraulic fluid dripping off of the tail section of the aircraft. It was running down from the APU bay area to the door to the aft equipment bay. They also noticed the hydraulic level was 25%. Level was serviced before taxi. On way to hangar level dropped 15%. Gained access to the aft equipment bay to look for leaks. Noted that the aft bay was filled with fluid on the right hand side. Checked into [inventory] for maintenance history regarding hydraulics and flight controls. Noted aircraft had a couple for write ups for low pressure and had maintenance done on it with replacing a couple of switches; Job Card X and Job Card Y according to [inventory]. Upon further inspection; found the cause of the leak to be coming from Job Card Z. After removal of switch; it was found to be installed with no O-ring; the back shell to the connector was not tight and the switch was not safetied. The sign off and reference used was also incorrect. Job Cards X/Y is for the Number 1 system; not the Number 2 system which was the write up that was being worked by [a Technician]. There is no AMM (Aviation Maintenance Manual) 29-XX-XX. It was also found that the top switch; Job Card Z was also not safetied; but did have an O-ring installed.I did go back into aircraft in the Maintenance Control screen and saw that [the aircraft] was worked on by a road trip. I would have to guess that lack of manuals and knowledge played a part in the errors committed.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Maintenance Supervisor reported that the aircraft was losing hydraulic fluid due to a switch that was installed without an 'O' ring.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight after about 3 hours airborne we were alerted by the aircraft's crew alerting system that we had a fuel imbalance followed by a fuel disagree message. With fuel in the center tank and differing amounts of fuel in the wings the indication of a fuel imbalance was what was being shown on our gauges. After running the fuel imbalance checklist and the fuel disagree checklist we discussed among all 4 crew members the possibility of having a fuel leak. With 11 hours of flight time ahead of us and an ocean to cross we decided to call Operations and start a discussion with Maintenance; Dispatch; and other tech pilots. After looking at fuel flows; indicated fuel values; calculated fuel values; landing weights; fuel pump positions; alternate airport options; and any other related info we found that we could not account for 9;000 pounds of fuel and that the best course of action was to divert to ZZZ to complete an overweight landing (585;000 lbs MLW is 575;000). The flight proceeded without incident and no emergency was declared. After the flight concluded it is believed that we may have had a fuel quantity sensor failure.It appears that there was a failure of an aircraft component so it's hard to say how it could be prevented.




Synopsis: B777-200 First Officer reported diverting and making an overweight landing due to unreliable fuel quantity indications.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 350
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching TEB from the southwest we were given vectors to intercept the ILS localizer. Our FMS does not enable ILS approaches nor is this approach available to download directly into the FMS. After intercepting the localizer at 2;000 FT MSL we were cleared for the ILS 6 and subsequently given the 1;500 FT mandatory crossing restriction at DANDY. Poor crew coordination led to both the pilot flying and pilot not flying setting the ILS localizer frequency into both NAVs and the TEB DME was temporarily not available to identify the fix. This resulted in a delay in determining precisely where DANDY was in relation to our current position. After being reminded of the restriction from ATC and determining that we were very close we expedited our descent and believe we complied with the restriction but it should have never been in question. Other than one brief local flight; this was the first flight the pilot flying and pilot not flying had worked together and our crew coordination was poor on this approach. All approach fixes should have been manually entered into the FMA for reference and the required DME available in a timely manner regardless of the VMC conditions.




Synopsis: King Air 350 Captain reports crew coordination issues during the ILS to Runway 6 at TEB. Both pilots are tuned to the ILS frequency and DANDY cannot be readily identified until the First Officer tunes the TEB VOR. The crossing restriction at DANDY may have been missed.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TMB.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Helicopter
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower TMB
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: A helicopter was outside Class D airspace on a northbound transition west of Krome Ave.  A C172 was in the VFR traffic pattern conducting touch and goes.  Just north of the 5 mile final of RWY 9L; the helicopter pilot informed me that it had a close call with the C172.  I asked how close it was; he informed me it was about 100 feet separation.  Recommendation for this event not happening again would be to give traffic advisories to aircraft in close proximity.  I was busy handling the five aircraft in the traffic pattern and forgot to call traffic to the helicopter.  I have to maintain better awareness.




Synopsis: Tower Controller is advised of a NMAC by a helicopter pilot transitioning northbound through the Class D; with a C172 in the VFR traffic pattern.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SMF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp SMF
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We were assigned gate {number} and passed right by it when taxiing in. When taxiing in from the north part of the ramp; the sign designating gate {number} faces south and cannot be seen when pulling into the Safety Zone. The 20-7 page shows gate {number} as the last one around the corner; yet it is not; as there is one more gate past {number}. All of the gate signs at the new terminal are very difficult to see. Because of their design; you cannot actually read the lettering unless you are directly in front of it. Our Agent said aircraft are always passing by {number} because of the charting and signage issues; yet Airport Management will not do anything about it.

Callback: The Reporter referred to the new Concourse B western most gates and stated that when approaching the gates from the north ramp off of Taxiway Y; the gate signs cannot be seen until directly facing the gates or approaching from the south. The Airport Management has been advised of the issue but refuses to address it although taxiing beyond the gates is a major concern for flight crew.



Synopsis: A Captain reported that the signage for the western most SMF Concourse B gates cannot be seen before turning into the gates when approaching from the north off Taxiway Y.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: P31.TRACON, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P31
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Took hand off of Aircraft X at XX:00z; he checked in gave him the altimeter and continued working. at around XX+17z; ZJX controller called and said he auto acquired the aircraft in his airspace 10 NE of 12J and had radar contact. Somehow the tag got terminated once I took radar and gave him altimeter.  He did not go into my coast/suspend list thus it was terminated by someone. I do not recall terminating it; as I had no reason to. I lost track of the flight because he was not on my scope anymore thus never initiating a hand off with ZJX controller. The aircraft flew for 30 miles in my airspace with no tag as I did a Falcon replay and the tag was dropped 1 min after I took the hand off from Elgin Approach. I think someone at another radar scope mistakenly dropped the tag and did not realize it. Don't know what could have been done from a controller point of view. If this was an automation error then I guess we could look into that.




Synopsis: P31 Controller reports of taking a handoff on an aircraft then the data tag mysteriously disappears a minute after taking the handoff. Aircraft flies through airspace for 30 miles without a data tag. Controller wonders who or what dropped the data tag.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ESN.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Albatros (L39)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While at VFR cruise altitude at 13;500 on a VFR training flight to ESN we entered the area of within 60 NM of the DCA VOR. Specific training required by the DC SFRA rules requires a mandatory speed of no greater than 230 indicated airspeed which we did abide by while enroute within the defined area requiring the speed restriction. Once we landed at ESN we were informed to call the Potomac TRACON. On that phone call; we were advised that we were doing 310kts ground speed which was going too fast according the DC SFRA procedures. However; ground speed is not the same as indicated airspeed when citing a violation. I actually agree with his statement that we were going that fast in Ground Speed. As 230kt indicated at 13;500 results in approximately 290kts true airspeed and with 15-25kts of tailwind as reported on my weather preflight I obtained via FLTplan.com to satisfy weather and NOTAM requirements of FARs. This would equate to an approximate value of 310Kts Ground Speed while still adhering to DC SFRA procedures of 230kt indicated while under VFR. Under this scenario there should be no need to document my actions as no procedures or FARs were broken regarding a speed violation.In order to mitigate further confusion in the future; the rules can be rewritten in ground speed instead of indicated airspeed so both pilot in the air and radar controller supervising VFR flights within the area are on the same page when it comes to speed control. Another possibility could be a refresher to both pilots and controllers alike about the change in true airspeed vs indicated airspeed with the change in altitude; especially high VFR altitudes where 230kts indicated can look like close to 300kts under certain circumstances. Another option could be any VFR aircraft wishing to operate between 200-230kt indicated must be on Flight following inside the DCA 60NM ring in order to afford Potomac TRACON the ability to manage high speed aircraft not under IFR control so near the DC SFRA but not actually inside the DC SFRA boundary.




Synopsis: L39 pilot reported ATC questioned his speed in the DC SFRA and appeared confused about the difference between IAS and ground speed.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After raising the landing gear handle the gear status light for the left main landing gear remained red. The gear light matched the gear status on the configuration synoptic page. All other indications (drag; wind noise) appeared consistent with successful gear retraction. We remained in the airport traffic area and below 230 KIAS and followed the QRH procedures. [An exploratory] gear extension was successful; however; a subsequent retraction yielded the same result; a red light for the left main gear. After consulting with the Company; we agreed to continue to destination at 300 KIAS/0.7 mach. Later; we received an ACARS message asking us to return to our departure airport. We called Dispatch and suggested another airport; as we were almost over another company maintenance base; and there would [also better serve our passengers's needs]. After consultion; Maintenance Control; the Duty Manager and Dispatch all agreed; and we diverted as requrested where another airplane was waiting. We deplaned; gave the aircraft to maintenance; boarded the new aircraft; and continued uneventfully to our destination.Maintenance determined the cause of the problem was a broken spring.




Synopsis: A B717-200 diverted to an enroute airport for maintenance when the left main landing gear geve indications of having failed to retract after takeoff.