elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Two aircraft departed. We departed VFR climbed as a formation to 16;500 feet direct to our final destination. We called Center at 9;000 feet climbing to 16;500 feet. I advised the Controller we were 2 aircraft in formation. We received a single transponder code. One aircraft took the code and the other remained on 1200. We spoke to Center and then Approach until handed to Tower. After landing we were informed that the second aircraft should not have crossed the ADIZ without its own code. I explained that Center gave us a single code and was aware we were a flight of two aircraft. I was the pilot of the lead aircraft. Ground Control told us they has spoken to Center and it wasn't a big deal but be aware each aircraft should have a discrete code. After clearing customs I was advised that in the future be aware that both planes should have a code other than 1200. The Customs person told me just be aware of this in the future.




Synopsis: C525 pilot reported the wingman did not have a discrete code that was required for the airspace they flew through while in formation.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was in normal hand-off status with PCTZ sector E1L.  The aircraft was on the correct code.  I was involved in separating aircraft that were stacked the wrong way and on bad routes coming from another sector within my area.  I noticed the approach controller did not take my hand-off yet and I called to make the hand-off.  After several failed attempts of reaching the controller I told the aircraft to execute a tight right 360 degree turn.  I then talked to the controller at PCTZ and they did not see the hand-off.  They saw a code and called the aircraft radar contact; but did not understand who it was or what they were doing.  I then talked to the controller about 10-15 minutes later and they said it was an ERAM issue. I should have asked for a d-side.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller tries to handoff an aircraft to PCT; but due to the use of ERAM; the receiving Controller did not see the handoff until the Center Controller called them.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 6
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Planned trip to occur during the afternoon. Initially planned as an IFR trip but before takeoff; elected to proceed VFR to remain below the cloud bases and possible icing conditions. Flight proceeded as planned but at just over the halfway point; lowering cloud conditions forced a cruise altitude of 1;000 feet AGL. Finding this to be uncomfortable; I contacted Center to request an IFR clearance to my destination. Once granted; I climbed to 5;000 feet. I had previously reviewed icing charts which indicated that once past the halfway point; there would be no icing at 5;000 feet. Furthermore; a pilot on frequency (by this time; Approach Control); reported VMC; between layers and no icing. During descent for the RNAV approach; detected trace icing which became light rime as the approach progressed. Nearing the ground; the ice began to disappear as I encountered warmer temperatures. The airplane's handling was unaffected and the approach and landing were otherwise uneventful.With the clarity of hindsight; instead of requesting an IFR clearance and climbing; I would have initiated a 180 degree turn and returned to my departure airport or a suitable deviation airport. My airplane is not configured for icing conditions and NO ICE has to be my rule. Even though the winds aloft forecast indicated that I should have been below the freezing level; when it's close; sometimes it doesn't go your way. Won't do that again; not worth it.




Synopsis: PA-32 pilot reported encountering clouds and possible icing that required a pop-up IFR clearance to complete the flight.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SBA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This STAR is notorious for the multiple step-down altitude assignments given by ATC after crossing PIRYT at FL240 inbound to SBA; but today took the cake. Today I was assigned EIGHT step-down altitudes between PIRYT and KWANG; a distance of only 37 miles. Specifically; after crossing PIRYT at FL240 I was assigned FL210; then FL200; then FL180; then 17;000; then 15;000; then 13;000; then 11;000; then 9;000; before finally being handed off to Santa Barbara TRACON (who immediately issued 2;000). This was all in the space of about 10 minutes. It is already challenging enough to have to cross PIRYT at FL240 and make SBA; so one is compelled to use a high rate of descent. When issued these multiple individual step-downs; it is maddening because it seems you get each one only after leveling at the previous one; necessitating autopilot mode changes every time and providing a real rocking horse of a descent for passengers. If you as a pilot try to mitigate this by using a lower rate of descent; and try to guess how many step-downs you'll get; you end up so high over KWANG as to make normal descent into SBA difficult or impossible. (The only crossing altitude on the STAR is FL240 at PIRYT.) Arrival is a busy enough time with all the other required tasks; so injecting EIGHT separate altitude assignments in so short a distance/time really is asking for task overload; especially for single-pilot operators like myself. This can't be much fun for ATC; either; so whatever is compelling ATC to have to resort to this needs to be looked at. Again; this rapid-fire multi-assigned altitude dance seems to be the norm for this STAR; this was just the worst one I have seen yet and it prompted me to file this report. The whole purpose of these RNAV STAR procedures is to eliminate the need for this kind of thing. They're supposed to decrease the burden on both ATC and the pilot; but this one has done the opposite.




Synopsis: Single pilot reported ATC assigns multiple step-down altitudes in a short time and distance on the PITBL STAR.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon discovery; a special non-routine maintenance form was generated to both document and address this discrepancy.What: left hand main landing gear truck assembly data plate missing/broken.Why: possible material defect and or fatigue causing fracture and separation from aircraft.Where: fracture of data plate occurred aft of mounting bolt.When: presumably during aircraft flight; taxi or landing; due to high airflow during landing gear extension or impact of landing gear on runway during landing phase of flight.        1) Data plate material should be evaluated by engineering for possible material strength upgrade?2) Implement the relocation of data plate to a lesser airflow area of the truck assembly?3) Initiate a fleet campaign directive?4) Initiate an emergency engineering order?5) Revision to include a general visual inspection for the verification of the installation of these data plates on all work cards pertaining to main landing gear assemblies?6) Revision to include the verification of the installation of these data plates in the service/daily check instructions?7) Revision to include the verification of the installation of these data plates in the maintenance/trip/service checks C & A instructions?8) Revision to include the verification of the installation of these data plates in the maintenance/phase checks c & above instructions?9) Initiate a maintenance alert in an attempt to inform AMTS to include the verification of the presence of these data plates during their pre/post flight walk around?




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician reported the data plate missing from the Left Main Landing Gear.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Denver Sector handed two aircraft off on converging courses at FL370. We had to call them numerous times and tell them how to separate these two aircraft.




Synopsis: ZMP Center Controller reported ZDV Center handed off two aircraft on converging courses.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Avionics; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While working on Aircraft X; I was told to use an Engineering Repair Order (ERO) X to clean a contaminated insulation blanket; that goes inside the Electrical Equipment (E/E) compartment. When I tried to pull the ERO up on the computer system; the system said there was not one available. A Supervisor had to print it out from his e-mail so I could do my job. This ERO changes the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) from no cleaning with solvents allowed on insulation blankets; to using Naphtha (a highly flammable solvent) to clean insulation blankets. When cleaning the blankets I noticed wherever the Naphtha was applied; a shiny residue was left behind. I now know there is a regulation for the burn rate for the insulation and I believe the burn rate has now been damaged.

Callback: Reporter stated the Engineering Repair Order (ERO) affects all of their Aircraft X type fleet. He was told the new ERO procedures were going to be used system wide. The ERO changes the AMM from 'No cleaning of insulation blankets' to using Naphtha; a highly flammable fluid as an acceptable cleaner of insulation blankets for the entire aircraft; including blankets in the Electrical Equipment (E/E) bay/compartment. The Naphtha fluid also affects the Corrosion Inhibiting Compounds (CIC) that has been applied to the aircraft's interior side of the fuselage. Reporter stated he suspects the shiny residue left behind on the surface of the blankets after the Naphtha fluid dries; could accelerate a fire. He also believes the burn time could be impacted due to the affects of the Naphtha fluid on the fire retardant properties of the blankets.



Synopsis: A Contract Mechanic was directed to use an Engineering Order that allowed the use of Naphtha fluid; a highly flammable solvent; to clean their aircraft insulation blankets; including the blankets in the Electrical Equipment (E/E) compartment.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RIC.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RIC
ATC / advisory: Tower RIC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was the Captain and Pilot Flying (PF) for Aircraft X from ZZZ to Richmond (RIC) on November XX; 2020; and observed the following. During cruise flight my First Officer and Pilot Monitoring (PM) alerted me that the last time (back in July) that she flew into RIC the airplane caught a false localizer signal and turned no where near the centerline of the respective runway. Having reviewed the Weather Briefing Package; I determined that RIC would be landing to the north; and elected to load the Runway 34 ILS approach. I confirmed all the waypoints with my PM and set up accordingly. I hard tuned the localizer frequency of 110.7; set the approach course of 337 degrees; and set the minimums of 370 feet on the Primary Flight Display (PFD). We received a clearance to cross the NEAVL intersection at 11;000 with a speed of 250 knots. We met that restriction; and then got a clearance to proceed to the KAFKA intersection and pilot's discretion to maintain 2;000 feet. That waypoint was loaded and confirmed. We began a descent. About 12 miles from the airport I slowed the aircraft to 210 knots and had selected Flaps 1. We were about 3;000 feet; and I slowed further to 180 knots; with a setting of Flaps 2. We were about 7 miles from the KAFKA waypoint; and confirmed the airport was insight. I began slowing the plane to 160 knots. About 3 miles from KAFKA; and the approach mode in the armed position; the airplane selected the LOC mode on the PFD and began to turn towards Runway 2. I turned the autopilot off; and manually continued to fly towards the KAFKA waypoint to lose more altitude. The airplane was about 2;300 feet; with 1;700 feet selected in the altitude selector. I continued the approach; and we landed safely. My First Officer questioned the Tower as to why this would happen. The Tower stated that both the Runway 34; and Runway 2 localizers were operational. He said that he would inform the staff at the airport.




Synopsis: Captain reported aircraft turned towards wrong runway due to multiple localizers operational simultaniously.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter qualification: Other Remote Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flew DJI Inspire drone into tree. I misjudged proximity to obstacle. Damaged onboard camera and rotor blade.




Synopsis: Phantom Pro 4 UAV Operator reported a collision with a tree during climb.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Special Use ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed and attempted to raise landing gear. Received indication that landing gear did not retract. Initial troubleshooting was unsuccessful. Turned down radio to minimize distractions to further troubleshoot problems using aircraft manual. Realized that would be transiting military control area and reported to this agency that a problem was being troubleshot and that would be transiting that airspace. Heard no response and assumed that ATC was no longer active and that flight into airspace would be OK. Was able to raise gear after reviewing emergency procedures for same and continued on to destination. Only later realized that volume on radio had been turned down; and any response from ATC would not have been heard.




Synopsis: Mooney M20T pilot reported that the landing gear would not retract after takeoff. While dealing with that distraction he entered restricted airspace.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing out at about 29;000 FT MSL we began experiencing multiple instrument errors. The Mode Control Panel completely froze and we were unable to set altitude; airspeed; heading; or course. We also had an MEL of the fuel totalizer on the FMC. Since [our destination] was experiencing strong winds and moderate turbulence; we decided to return to [departure airport]. Enroute back; we encountered thunderstorms and had to receive help from ATC in navigating. We elected to land immediately which required an overweight landing. The Captain refused to declare an emergency. I disagreed with this decision.




Synopsis: B737-300 First Officer reported loss of MCP in climb; leading to a decision to return to departure airport; where they made a safe overweight landing.