elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working two sectors combined during a west flow. We were ILS XXR and visuals to Runway XY. I was trying to lay off of Runway XY because I just didn't have time to vector and hit the ghosts. I am already busy vectoring for space to [Runway] XXR and I had a couple that I was taking to Runway XY. Aircraft X popped up from ZZZ and I just didn't have a good way to take them to Runway XXR. I decided to assign them Runway XY. All my arrivals to XXR are already descended to 6;000 feet. Aircraft X came to me at 6;000 feet and I needed to get them under my ZZZ1 arrivals. I then descended Aircraft X to 5;000 feet and didn't see the traffic in front of them who ZZZ1 was working. By the the time I noticed it Aircraft X was already responding to an RA. After coming off of a COVID-19 reduced staffing schedule a lot of A siders are a little rusty in the radar room. I think that sectors should have been split.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller working busy combined arrival sectors descended an aircraft from 6;000 feet to 5;000 feet which caused a conflict with another aircraft.
Date: 202012
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
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: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending via the ZZZZZX arrival with the Autopilot off - on profile and speed. FO decided to hand fly the remainder of the approach and landing and disconnected both the Autopilot and Autothrust near ZZZZZ1 intersection. A minute later I looked away and when I looked again; I noticed the FO was high on profile and I mentioned that we needed to cross ZZZZZ1 level at 6;000 feet. The FO increased the rate of descent and crossed ZZZZZ1 level at 6;000 but then continued to descend to approximately 5;900 feet and around 250 knots - with accelerating trend. I verbalized both altitude and speed; and the FO quickly recovered both. We were soon level at 6;000 feet - 240 knots...and soon to slow to 210 knots by ZZZZZ2. There was very light traffic in the terminal area and ATC made no mention of conflicts of any kind. We then proceeded to land uneventfully on Runway XX. The main contributing factor was the FO being new as well as not having flown much for the last several months. We fully debriefed everything; including what to improve on; once at the gate when duties permitted.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an altitude and airspeed deviation during arrival.  Captain cited the First Officer's lack of flying time in the last several months as a contributing factor.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were very heavy at 200;000 LBS takeoff. It took us a long time to get to cruise. At first HEFOE check after reaching cruise altitude; realized the possibility there was a fuel transfer issue with Auxiliary Center Tanks (ACT). Observed fuel system display for 10-15 minutes until verifying that fuel was not transferring to center tank.Contacted dispatch and maintenance. Activated manual ACT pump override. Fuel from FWD ACT (left ACT on system display) began to transfer. Dispatch; with maintenance concurrence; said to continue. 30-40 minutes later the FWD ACT was empty. Unfortunately; the AFT ACT tank did not transfer its fuel with the secondary pump. Once again; we contacted dispatch advising them we would have to land with almost 4000 LBS in the aft ACT.Dispatch requested we divert. We took delaying vectors in order to land under max landing weight. We landed 25 minutes later at 171;000 lbs. We switched aircraft and continued uneventfully to our scheduled destination.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported the Additional Center Tank aft did not transfer properly. Flight diverted to interim airport.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Window Ice/Rain System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The following is a description of the air turnback event on date:We departed ZZZZ operating ZZZZ-ZZZ. During climb out we started to notice a burning smell in the cockpit. We continued towards ZZZ; while trying to determine the cause of the smell. We climbed to 40;000 ft.; and continued towards ZZZ. The burning smell would continue to come and go. The smell started to get stronger and more frequent. I had the loadmaster and flight mechanic; as well as the FAA Inspector; looking for possible sources of the smell. We determined the smell was coming from the forward area of the cockpit. At that point I closed my air vent; and at that point notice that smoke was coming from the First Officer's side of the glare shield. We made the decision at that point to return to the airport in ZZZZ. As we started to descend back into ZZZZ we continued to try and find the source of the smoke and smell. As I was feeling the top of the glareshield; my finger touched the lower right portion of the windshield; and burnt it on contact. At that point I turned off the right forward window heat. After approximately 10 minutes the area was cool enough to touch. As we continued to ZZZZ the smell started to dissipate. Upon landing; the flight mechanic checked the connection; and the right forward window heat was deferred per the Company MEL (Minimum Equipment List). We departed ZZZZ for ZZZ and noted no further smells or issues. This was a mechanical malfunction. Nothing could be changed to prevent this in the future.




Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew reported smoke in the cockpit during climb that resulted in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201907
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Left engine failed due to fuel starvation. Was able to divert and land at ZZZ before the right engine failed. Upon further research; discovered that the FBO at BFI was not fueling the aircraft to the amount of requested and since the fuel gauges were not accurate; my fuel calculations were worthless.




Synopsis: Pilot reported aircraft received less fuel than requested resulting in a diversion as fuel gauges were also unreliable.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My student and I were landing on runway XX at ZZZ when an airplane passed behind and underneath us - from right to left - to execute a go-around when we were approximately 15 feet from the ground. We first arrived at ZZZ and were the only aircraft in the pattern. [About half an hour later] an airplane entered the right downwind for XX. The airplane made a downwind radio call; and we made our radio call for final approach. While approaching to runway XX the airplane asked us for our location. I responded on short final for XX. Shortly thereafter I made another call to say we were over the numbers for XX. At this time I heard an engine close to the helicopter; simultaneously looked right; saw the airplane; and flared the helicopter aft to avoid a collision. After stabilizing the helicopter I moved from the runway and landed the helicopter on the taxiway parallel the runway. All parties made radio calls and from my perspective it seems that the airplane did not have our helicopter in sight; but opted to land anyway.




Synopsis: R-22 Instructor reported NMAC during final approach with an aircraft doing a go-around.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DNL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF DNL
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on the ground at DNL waiting for our IFR release from Augusta ATC. We taxied out to runway 23 and held short while we waited. One aircraft arrived on runway 11 and we watched him land. After he cancelled his IFR we were given our clearance. We announced we were taking off [on] runway 23. I taxied the airplane into position for takeoff. As I pushed the power up I noticed something at the other end of the runway. There is a hump and a downhill slope to the runway so it was hard to see what exactly it was. There was someone in a small airplane (152/172) that had taxied onto runway 5 (coming towards us) and was starting to takeoff. This person made no radio calls at all. I immediately pulled the power to idle and did not have time to vacate the runway before the other airplane flew over our airplane. The smaller airplane continued to climb and went over us at approximately 300 feet.




Synopsis: Light jet Captain reported rejecting his takeoff roll when he spotted a light aircraft taking off from the opposite runway.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During Main-Landing-Gear (MLG) Wheel Assembly replacement (for tire tread wear); during installation it was noted that some threads were stripped in an aluminum adapter inside the axle. Two bolts secure a spring clip that retains the wheel to axle nut. The spring clip prevents the nut from loosening. In turn; the two bolts are secured to the clip by safety wire. It would not be possible to torque one of the two bolts. The time was approaching to move the aircraft from the Hangar parking area to the Terminal; and there was insufficient time to procure and install a new adapter. The Mechanic installed the clip with two bolts; but could not tighten the second to the specified torque. The only thing holding the second bolt was the safety wire. The mechanic signed the block on the work card that he torqued both; but had not. If the bolt migrates; it may contact the (rotating) hubcap of the wheel. Damage to the hubcap may affect the anti-skid braking system.It is the (de facto) policy of local Management to reprimand any Mechanic involved in a late departure (originator delay due to maintenance). Usually this includes written 'performance counseling' forms on the Mechanic's record that can lead to termination. On time performance pressure to get the aircraft to the gate; to avoid an originator delay and to avoid being 'written up' influenced the mechanic to choose improper maintenance and falsification of records.Allow the mechanic sufficient time to perform and record proper maintenance -- i.e. follow written company policy.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician reported about the effects of a 'De Facto' policy of reprimand by his air carrier's local Management whenever a Technician is involved in a late departure due to maintenance on originator flights. Technician did not torque one of two bolts securing a spring clip that retains a main landing gear wheel to axle nut on an ERJ-170 aircraft.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We had a] Number Two Engine failure on climb out at 12;000 FT. Declared emergency and diverted to an en route airport for the ILS 24L.


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


Synopsis: A B737-700 engine failed during climb so the QRH was complied with; an emergency declared and the flight diverted to an enroute airport.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared the LDORA2 RNAV to DEN. Arrival and Runway 35L programmed and briefed. Initial Approach Controller gave us RWY 34R. First Officer asked if 35L was available and the reply was no due to traffic. We reprogrammed [Runway] 34R and briefed. Then; we switched to the Final Controller and were given an altitude and heading change. Controller asked if we would like RWY 35L. We replied yes and reprogrammed the FMC for landing [Runway] 35L. The previous altitude left us high and the Controller asked if we would like vectors to the east. We accepted vectors so we could get back on profile. We were then cleared to intercept the LOC. We intercepted the LOC for [Runway] 35L. We were then in VMC conditions and Controller asked if we had runway in sight. We were established on the LOC 35L and replied yes. The Controller then replied cleared for the visual 34R. The First Officer asked the Controller if they meant [Runway] 35L. Controller replied that they didn't hear our acceptance of Runway 35L and that our radio transmissions were being clipped at the beginning. We were then cleared the visual approach to [Runway] 35L and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported an ATC communications breakdown on arrival into DEN resulting in a heading deviation.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BJC.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Tower BJC
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I noticed a 1200 code transitioning from north to south east of the Class D. Aircraft X was inbound for 30R and I was trying to determine where Aircraft X would fit inbound with my other traffic. As Aircraft X approached the airport; it appeared they needed to descend out of 080; but there was traffic near them on the approach at 075. Eventually; after it appeared Aircraft X had to level off before turning inbound; the approach controller was able to switch the inbound to me; and he checked on reporting that he had the traffic in his proximity in sight. Out of curiosity; I asked if the pilot could tell what type of aircraft it was and he said it looked like a Cherokee.When traffic permitted; I was able to check and determine from ADS-B that the callsign of the 1200 target was Aircraft Y. A few minutes later; the approach controller called with a request to turn Aircraft Z into the Class D to avoid that northbound aircraft as well. I approved the request and Aircraft Y appeared to continue out of the area.This is another instance of an aircraft flying perfectly legally just outside of controlled airspace; yet causing traffic conflicts with aircraft utilizing the air traffic system. The air traffic system worked as intended (collisions avoided); but it would have been safer and more efficient if the transitioning aircraft was in contact with air traffic control. They could have received flight following from approach or contacted our tower to either transition or advise their intentions.My recommendation is to continue to encourage pilots to take advantage of air traffic control services; even if it is to simply advise as a courtesy that they are transitioning nearby controlled airspace. It may be helpful to remind pilots at local events; through online materials; and even provide suggestions on aviation charts (eg. frequencies for traffic advisories from approach or towers). In hindsight; I wish I had called in the blind to see if the aircraft was on frequency. However; I recall having other duties to perform at the time (traffic in the pattern or arriving); and did not want to get distracted with the transitioning aircraft.




Synopsis: BJC Tower Controller reported an unsafe but legal operation involving VFR and IFR aircraft.