elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Propeller Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I completed 3 touch and go at ZZZ. I had turned out to the NE climbing through 1;500 feet and heading about 059 degrees when I noticed a vibration. I turned slowly back toward the field (about 239 degrees) and tried to isolate the vibration by slowly retarding the throttle. During this time I heard a bang and my windshield was covered in oil (I was not able to see through the windshield). I immediately shut both ignition switches off and turned master electrical and boost pump off. I then proceeded to slide the canopy open to see out. After I got the canopy open I saw ZZZ and got the aircraft trimmed and set at best rate of descent from 85 mph to 65 mph and preceded to ZZZ. I had to do s-turns to get down to safe altitude for final and landing at ZZZ. After roll out and post inspection revealed the Spinner/Prop/Flange missing. On further investigation; revealed the crankshaft sheared.




Synopsis: Experimental aircraft pilot reported an uneventful forced landing due to Prop Assembly failure.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C ORD
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: When preparing for pushback at ZZZ; the ramp called ready and asked if we could release the brakes for aircraft capture. I replied that I could not and asked if the ramper was familiar with the fact that we are not allowed to do so until we are cleared to push. She responded that yes she was; but that her superiors told them to ask for brake release early so that they can get the on time. She said this is a consistent message from her leadership.There is no reason why we can't release the brakes for aircraft capture prior to receiving the push clearance. The capture process takes some time anyways and it would be helpful to have it complete when actually cleared to push.Flight Operations and the ramp department need to come to agreement on the procedures here. We are constantly asked to release the brake prior to being cleared to push; particularly in ZZZ.




Synopsis: Captain reported that it is unclear if company policy allows brake release to be done prior to receiving clearance to push.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: OJC.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E MCI
ATC / advisory: TRACON MCI
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I departed on a flight to OJC. [On] Kansas City Approach [I] started a VFR descent into OJC at about 150 KIAS. At approximately 4;000 FT MSL and 10 NM west of OJC [I was] on the 250 radial traveling direct to OJC heading 070. The airplane was on autopilot. I saw in my peripheral [vision] a yellow aircraft at my 10-11 o'clock going south; co-altitude on collision bearing. I had to take aggressive action unloading the aircraft and the yellow aircraft went directly over us at no more than 500 FT; and I would say it was more like 300 FT. I also fly F/A-18s in the military and have a lot of formation experience and know that it was closer than 500 FT. After the adrenaline wore off I called Approach and they said I was their only contact. Keep in mind this was JUST outside the Mode C veil from MCI (OJC250010); and since the other aircraft was traveling south I can only assume he was just inside the Mode C veil moments prior; so either he wasn't squawking Mode 3C or their radar was inoperative. I also asked OJC Tower if they had any contact on their radar and they said their only other contact was a Pilatus 10 NM southwest of IXD.Contributing factors: long flight; I was focused on the approach and landing; not having the best visual lookout. I'm not sure I would have seen the airplane had it not been painted bright yellow. Having had a couple very close passes flying F/A-18's; I truly believe my wife; daughter; two dogs and I would have collided with that aircraft if I had not kicked off autopilot and unloaded at the last second. Get better radar in the terminal area of Kansas City. This is not the first time I've had a close pass with another aircraft in almost the same spot. I find it totally unacceptable that 33 NM from MCI at 4;000 FT two aircraft almost collided and approach didn't see anything.




Synopsis: The pilot of a high performance single engine aircraft reported a NMAC with an experimental on approach to OJC. ATC reported they were not in contact with any other aircraft in the area.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Odor on aircraft when APU bleed selected on. Maintenance opinion was that odor was caused by rain water mixed with fluid on side of plane were being brought into APU intake and causing odor. After engine start odor was less but still there. At take off odor became very strong; eyes nose and throat burned. Went on O2 and returned to field for overweight landing. Paramedics met crew and took to hospital for tests. On going odor problem with aircraft pack system.




Synopsis: An A319 crew declared an emergency; donned O2 masks and returned to land after a strong odor caused burning eyes and throat.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On final approach; an early flare caused a hard landing; blowing the right tire and causing the plane to veer off the runway hitting a small sign with the left wing. No injury to pilot. No damage to runway/airport equipment; except a small sign knocked down.




Synopsis: Bonanza pilot reports a hard landing causing a tire to blow and a runway excursion.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: For at least the third time this year; I sat down at [this sector] with weather and an array of hot military airspace and saw immediately that I was going to be going down the tubes! I mentioned to the CIC [Controller in Charge] (we have very few Supes [Front Line Managers]) that the situation called for TMU [Traffic Management Unit] to restrict ORD northbound traffic. He said he would watch it. What followed was an air traffic free for all; with aircraft flashing HO [Hand Off] to me that are level at FL230 at BAE VOR; which must be climbed to miss the airspace. Every single aircraft deviating; asking about rides; routes; reports; [and] making PIREPS. There was; as far as I know; no attempt by TMU to actually manage traffic. My sector may not have been red; but anyone who actually knows this job could have seen how dangerous this sector was; and yet aircraft were poured out of ORD without restriction. Eventually; the CIC restricted the military airspace which helped. I ended up violating [another sector] at ZMP perhaps half dozen times; and they violated me. We handed off aircraft with incorrect data blocks simply because volume made it impossible to properly amend a DB [Data Block] before two other guys started talking about deviating. In their defense; when the airspace is hot; SAW works many MSP departures north of the airspace and it was into this stream that I drove my traffic; virtually all deviating; all stopped at interim altitudes; and sometimes with incorrect data. It was incredibly dangerous and as I said previously; this is at least the third or fourth time this year it has happened to me. It is my opinion that when military airspace is hot in the north area; there be a standard restriction on ORD north departure of at least 20 miles. When there is weather in addition; it should be 30 miles.




Synopsis: Chicago Center Controller reported an unsafe situation relating to weather; traffic volume; and airspace.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While climbing out of DCA on J149 to ROD on our way to our cruise altitude of 380; Washington Center said she showed us routed on Q72 to Hacks. We were on J149. We replied that we were on J149. At that time; I looked down at our PDC which had; indeed; included a revised segment via Q72. During setup; we both missed the revised segment on the PDC. For many years; the PDC format from ACARS had the filed route on top just below the XPDR code; followed by the revised segment; followed by remarks at the bottom.  Recently; the revised segment and filed route were reversed; with the revised segment on top; followed by the filed route. When we both looked at the PDC; we both looked at the filed route; thinking we were looking at the revised segment. Since it agreed with what we had put into the FMGC; we thought we were good to go. Two things contributed to this error. First; the reversal in the PDC format; and second; the high frequency of times where we have revised segments that are exactly as we are filed. This is what we both thought we had on this flight.


Second narrative: While climbing to FL380 on J149; Washington Center queried us if we were on Q72. We replied that we are on J149. At that same moment we looked at our PDC and confirmed that there was a revision and we both missed it. We let the Washington Center know that we had missed the revision. She cleared us directly to HAACK intersection and the rest of flight was uneventful. There was no inflight incursion. In the past month I've noticed a flip flop on PDC format. The revision was on the bottom of PDC and now it is on top. Also for many years since inception ATC publishes a revision but in reality it is a mere copy of original clearance and we get into a habit of now paying too much attention to the revisions. A better way to illustrate revisions might be order. Both of these factors contributed to us missing the revision.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew is informed by ATC that they are off course. It is determined that the PDC clearance via ACARS was misinterpreted and a revised segment was not entered in the FMGC.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other Engine start
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Pilot exceeded TOT limits during engine start. The aircraft was then flown with an unknown mechanical irregularity. The first start attempt was made with the main fuel switch in the OFF position. The engine started but did not reach operating RPM before flaming-out. The pilot reconfigured the aircraft and restarted the engine. The TOT indication began flashing after engine start. The pilot mistakenly thought the aircraft had not experienced a hot start because of similarities between the TOT gage and the torque gage. The pilot interpreted the TOT flashing display as an impending hot start and only discovered the actual hot start after consulting with Maintenance Control upon landing. The engine required a hot section inspection; but there was no damage found. Contributing Factors: 1) TOT and Torque both flash. One indicates an actual exceedance; the other an impending exceedance. Each has a different action required. 2) Night conditions with poor cockpit lighting. 3) Limited experience in the aircraft. 4) Minimal flight training during indoctrination. 5) VERY minimal systems training. 6) Attention was diverted from the TOT during start to ensure the main rotor was turning at 25%. 7) Failure to use the checklist. The company's expected standard is to be in the air within seven minutes of receiving an EMS flight request. That includes getting the aircraft out of the hangar; checklist completion; and engine start. Corrective Action: 1) The Bell 206L3 being flown has no over torque or over temp protection. More time should be spent during training to ensure the pilot has a COMPLETE understanding of the TOT indications and their significance. 2) Less emphasis on getting in the air in seven minutes and more emphasis on using the checklist.




Synopsis: Bell 206 pilot attributed failure to recognize a hot start to Temperature and Torque gauge similarity; poor cockpit lighting; limited experience in the aircraft; requirement to monitor rotor RPM; failure to use the checklist; minimal training and time pressure.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise; Descent
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE; TRACON S46
Aircraft component: Ice/Rain Protection System Indicating & Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While on descent we encountered Rime Ice and activated the wing Anti Ice system. ECAM generated a Wing Anti Ice. System Fault message. We complied with the ECAM actions which included exiting icing conditions. Icing was assumed to exist all the way to the ground based on reports of low ceilings and light snow at our destination so we opted to climb and divert to our filed alternate. We did not declare an emergency since ATC allowed us to climb immediately out of icing conditions and the wings appeared to by ice-free based on visual inspection.We advised Flight Attendants; passengers and Dispatch via ACARS. They did not respond immediately; but while on final approach to we got a request from Dispatch to consider two other airports. Due to prevalent IMC in the region and our fuel state we opted to continue and land at since it was VMC and our fuel state might not support delays to analyze the feasibility of reaching another alternate without entering IMC or icing. The station personnel were VERY helpful in dealing with a large aircraft they were not trained on and additional passengers they had not planned for; and should be commended. After several hours; Contract Maintenance was able to defer the Wing Anti Ice system in the 'on' condition and we were able to proceed to our original destination.If the company would prefer that crews divert to somewhere other than the filed alternate they should communicate that in a timely manner or ideally in advance. Fuel often precludes lengthy analysis of multiple options. Either file for the 'preferred' alternate in the first place or add an additional 'preferred' alternate to the release; in addition to the legal filed alternate.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported while on short final to their filed diversion airport Dispatch requested they divert to a different airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When unloading airmail from Aircraft X staff discovered potential DG. The parcel has not been forwarded from ZZZ1; but is hold back until further notice.What is your opinion of the cause?It could be an old box reused; but we have to react on those label.I do not understand how this could be sent without any attention when it was placed on the pallet.What is your suggested corrective action?Please inform staff not to put boxes like these on pallets.


Second narrative: When unloading airmail from Aircraft X staff discovered leaking oily substance from a parcel.The parcel is military mail; and it is not long ago we have had the same problem.The parcel was removed from other airmail; but have leaked on 3 other parcel. We will hold back the parcel at our warehouse until further notice.What is your opinion of the cause?It is potential dangerous with leaking oily substance in aircraft and shipper must know not to send oil like this.What is your suggested corrective action?Please inform shipper not to send parcel like this on passenger aircraft.


Synopsis: Air Carrier Ramp personnel reported undocumented 'Hazmat labeled cargo' during unloading.