elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Landing Light
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was conducting a visual approach to Runway XXL at ZZZ at night with landing light INOP (discovered while in flight). Landing light tested good on the ground before takeoff. I was approaching from the west and was instructed to enter right base for XXL. I was subsequently told to extend my base to a 2 mile final for sequencing. After which I was given clearance to turn base; I commenced a turn to final but could not acquire the runway. I let ATC know at which time they informed me I was just west of the field just about abeam the airport. I picked up the field and was told to make a right 180 degree turn to enter the right base for Runway XXR (this time). As I made the turn; I noticed my EFB display with Red Traffic and I looked up and saw a small GA aircraft pass directly underneath me at a very close range (no more than 150 ft). I believe I asked Tower if they were aware of the traffic in the pattern that passed underneath me. Evidently that was an aircraft on base to XXR. I requested XXL since my landing light was INOP and wanted a nice long runway with plenty of lighting. Tower cleared me to land on XXL after my request. The reason why I'm submitting this is because I don't recall Tower calling out the traffic to me at all. I was under Tower's Control at the time and should have been given an advisory on the traffic. I reached out to ZZZ Tower to verify and see if they can roll the tapes to examine this situation to enhance safety.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a NMAC while in the traffic pattern and preparing to land.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am confident based on my instrumentation that I did not violate Class A airspace. However; I was in contact with Center by phone who identified my aircraft via my ADS-B out and Mode S transponder. They informed me that they had observed on radar several gliders at or above 18;000 ft. They confirmed that it was not my aircraft that violated the airspace. I was asked to communicate with other glider pilots flying that day about the violations. I notified all of the pilots I knew of who were flying that day about my conversation with Center and stressed the need to be very careful not to exceed 17;999 feet given the danger associated with gliders conflicting with arriving or departing traffic in the area. In terms of corrective action the glider community is making sure they understand the possible differences in altitude displayed in our cockpits vs. the actual altitude read by ATC. Our flight level data is sent via our transponders and it is then corrected for local altimeter settings which will be displayed on traffic control radars. Due to pressure changes occurring over our flight paths we may inadvertently be above 17;999 ft. For instance on the day of the event the local altimeter setting at one location compared to another location about 30 miles away could have resulted in an aircraft being as much as 400 ft higher than was intended by the pilot.




Synopsis: Sailplane pilot reported he was contacted by Center and advised some of the sailplanes flying with him violated Class A airspace.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the controls; First Officer; and Captain monitoring. The approach was normal and stable. When approaching 300 feet the pilot monitoring called continue. The Captain had visual of the airport; autopilot came off while the pilot flying then visually acquired the runway. When the autopilot came off there was a slight drift to the left; preventing me from seeing the runway straight ahead; as it was just off my right shoulder. Scanned the instruments and looked back outside and the runway was visually acquired. I made the appropriate correction to align with runway. We were slightly high therefore I nosed the aircraft down to correct the situation and the sink rate aural caution came on. We were just about to touchdown when we heard the stick shaker at roughly 5 feet and we were on the ground a moment after. The landing was firm; however no bounce and the aircraft continued normally with the remaining landing phase of flight and taxi. The Captain decided to report it to maintenance as a precaution and I performed a thorough post flight inspection of the aircraft with no visual signs of damage. Request more training to work with approach to minimums in the airline environment where the Pilot flying continues to the ground or makes Go Around decision if runway not in sight to PF (Pilot Flying) at minimums.




Synopsis: ERJ-140 First Officer reported an unstabilized approach; leading to a stick shaker just prior to touchdown and a hard landing.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CMH.TRACON, OH
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON CMH
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the Middletown Sector where we have 3 Parachute jump zones one of which was still active at Red Stewart Airport Waynesville; OH. (40I). There were two aircraft that were jumping; one had just dropped jumpers and was in the descent back to the airport; the other was still climbing to jump from 12;000 FT. I had pointed out the aircraft to Cincinnati Approach because they had been watching the aircraft since the start of my shift and I wanted them to know this was the aircraft's last jumps for the night. As Aircraft X; the jump aircraft; was reaching 11;000 FT; Cincinnati called on the shout line and asked if had exchanged traffic; a target at 11;200 FT to the jump aircraft. I told them I would; at which point I issued the traffic to Aircraft X who stated he had the traffic in sight. I then observed the CRJ2 climbing which led me to believe he received a Resolution Advisory (RA). I was later told that Cincinnati Approach had called wondering if traffic was exchanged because the pilot of the CRJ2 was concerned about the other aircraft being that close to the arrival route. Later as I was CIC I got a call from Indianapolis Center asking similar questions and stating that it might be a good idea to have all the controllers at Columbus Approach start pointing out jump aircraft to Indianapolis Center as well as Cincinnati so all controllers involved with traffic in the area of 40I know who they are and what they are doing. I would like to see Columbus Approach (CMH); Cincinnati Approach (CVG); Indianapolis Center (ZID) and the Parachute jumping company enters a letter of agreement (LOA) that spells out where the aircraft are to climb; who they talk to and remind the pilots of their requirements when climbing or descending within the jump zone. I think it should also be published on the chart for the TIGGR of CINCE arrivals about parachute activity in close proximity of the arrival route near the Red Stewart airport (40I) located at Waynesville; OH.




Synopsis: CMH Controller described a RA event involving an Air Carrier and a 'Jump' aircraft in a nearby parachute zone; the reporter providing a number of recommendations to curb same type future events.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Received Stab Trim [and] Mach Trim caution messages as both systems disconnected as we rotated and raised gear after takeoff. There was prior history of this issue with this aircraft. I was Pilot Flying (PF) and asked my First Officer (FO) to re-engage the Stab and Mach Trim. We continued the climb out and on course when the Stab and Mach Trim disconnected again with 'Autopilot Trim is ND' and 'AP Pitch Trim' caution messages. My FO ran QRH for Stab and Mach Trim and re-engaged both systems again. As we were leveling at 10;000 feet we noticed Alts Caps but the aircraft kept climbing through 10;000. I disengaged the autopilot and we experienced a violent nose down drop of about 200 to 300 feet and heard a loud bang as the autopilot disengaged. I was able to regain control and level the aircraft and re-trim the pitch. We notified ATC and asked for a block altitude while we troubleshot a flight control issue. We notified Dispatch and [Maintenance] via ACARS and we agreed that returning to [departure airport] was the best and safest course of action. I notified our Flight Attendant and made a PA to the passengers advising them of the issue. I was able to re-engage the autopilot and handed the controls over to the FO where he became the PF. I [advised] ATC and we were vectored back. We landed with no further issues and there were no known issues from any passengers. We switched aircraft and continued on 45 minutes after arriving at the gate. Aircraft with a known Stab Trim or Stab motor issues should have a functional test flight before being returned to passenger service. This was quite a disturbing event and could have been much worse.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported returning to departure airport after experiencing stabilizer trim anomalies.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was dispatched downline to ZZZ1 to retrieve unserviceable fuel components and tooling. Upon arrival; spoke with Aircraft Maintenance Technician X (AMT); who informed me that fuel levels in all [component] parts are at the required minimum for legal HAZMAT shipment. At that time; I prepared parts for shipment back to ZZZ Station. Took parts to gate at ZZZ1; had paperwork signed by Ramp Agent who placed items in Aft Cargo Bin for shipment to ZZZ. Then delivered Dangerous Goods Form (NOTAC) paperwork to operation agent/pilot and I proceeded to board aircraft. Upon arriving in ZZZ; a coworker informed me that HAZMAT shipment had leaked through boxes into baggage compartment on the B737-700 aircraft. This resulted in the aircraft being pulled from service. Day shift. [Recommend] to make sure procedures in the Maintenance Procedures Manual (MPM) are followed for removing fuel from unserviceable parts/ tooling. Procedures missed. HAZMAT Specialist.


Second narrative: Nine articles of HAZMAT fuel contaminated parts were loaded on aircraft. I verified with Operations and Ground personnel that all procedures were followed and signed two NOTAC's for the articles. Upon arrival; Ramp and Operations informed me [that] two boxes had leaked and we had a fuel spill in the Aft Cargo bin. Maintenance and Dispatch were notified and the aircraft was pulled from service. Crew is pretty much in the dark in this situation and has to trust others to do their jobs properly.


Synopsis: After arrival; a company HAZMAT Specialist and a B737-700 Captain were informed that two of the nine articles of unserviceable fuel components that were shipped in the Aft Cargo pit had leaked through their shipping containers. Aircraft was removed from service.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain called me and said we were landing in ZZZ in 15 minutes to prepare the cabin for landing. The Captain made the announcement that we would land in ZZZ. We landed safely and waited for 4 hrs while they sent another plane to finish the flight. The right engine was shut down due to low oil pressure; made the Yellow Emergency announcement.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Flight Attendant reported the flight diverted after the right engine was shut down due to low oil pressure.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Airliner 99
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I showed up at the [Company] ramp around XA:50 and conducted my preflight on the airplane. Everything looked good and the trim indicator was in the green box. [Company] loaded up my plane. I finished my weight and balance and flight plan; then started the engines. I taxied forward to the ramp/deice area to complete a run-up. I performed the auto-feather and prop governor test. When I advanced the throttles forward; I heard the takeoff out of trim warning. I bumped the trim nose down to recenter the arrow in the takeoff box and the warning went away. The rest of the run-up went fine. I called Clearance; then Ground; to taxi. I used Runway XXL at the Taxiway XX intersection for my departure. Tower cleared me to take off; I went through my final checks; set the torque; and when I was at my Vr speed; I began to pull back on the yoke to climb. Almost immediately the controls started to get really heavy. I looked down at the trim and the trim indicator arrow was all the way at the top of the box; indicating full nose down. At this point I was out of runway to put the plane back down so I called the Tower and let them know that I had a trim runaway issue and would like to return to the airport. As I circled the airport to come back for a landing; I tried the primary trim and the secondary trim with no response in flight. I ended up landing on Runway XYL and then taxied back to the ramp.Our Maintenance department is going through the plane's systems to check for the issue. Reviewing the weight and balance; I was within weight and CG limits of the airplane.




Synopsis: BE99 Captain reported a trim runaway problem on takeoff and performed an air turnback and precautionary landing.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
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
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was assigned Sector 12 for approximately 50 minutes I was given several TMU reroutes over this course of time; two had already been issued prior to this event. The air carrier was a point out from Sector 21 and I was climbing a corporate jet reference the air carrier. I issued a reroute clearance for the corporate aircraft that would de conflict with the air carrier via a route change. I issued to the corporate aircraft after BOLDE Intersection IPL.J2.GBN.ELP rest of route. The pilot readback as such and I continued his climb seeing that he was no longer in conflict with the air carrier. Unfortunately after BOLDE Intersection he continued on the ELB1 departure which brought the aircraft back in conflict with the air carrier. The closest proximity appeared to be 5.33 miles at the same altitude. After the next sector had de-conflicted the aircraft once again we asked what the pilot was issued the pilot readback as first instructed. Upon looking at the ELB1 departure there is another fix called BALDI Intersection that sounded similar to BOLDE which was further down on the departure. The corporate aircraft took the BOLDE Intersection as 'BALDI' and inputted the route change after BALDI.I had given this reroute twice before this corporate aircraft and both aircraft had taken the correct intersection as stated. I don't believe there was an issue with the hear-back/readback as the pilot had pronounced it correctly. I would recommend that either the BOLDE or BALDI Intersection be renamed to de-conflict the similarity of the name; especially both are on the same departure.




Synopsis: A corporate crew on the SNA ELB 1 was issued an off route clearance after BOLDE to avoid a conflict with an air carrier; but the corporate crew remained on the ELB 1 track recreating the conflict. There may have been confusion between BALDI and BOLDE intersections; 45 miles apart on the ELB 1 SID.