elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound from our western arrival gate to FLL. They were inbound to the airport descending for the approach. Aircraft Y; a VFR popup off of TMB who climbed to the northwest under the Miami finals; and was only known because of ADS-B who it was; cleared out from under the bravo and continued its climb up to 045 under the FLL finals. Aircraft X's descent had to be stopped; causing them to be high; unstable; and unsafe on the approach. This is not a safe way to work parallel runway traffic into FLL; needing to always stay high because VFRs are allowed to climb and fly willy-nilly through them.FLL airport is the 19th busiest airport in the USA; and one of the top 3 fastest growing; averaging 8% growth each of the last 5 years. FLL has a basic Class C airspace surrounding it that is beyond out of date and unable to aid in the safety of its aircraft on the finals. Planes inbound to each of their parallel runways are not offered any sort of protection until within 5 miles of the field; which allows several dozen VFRs each day to climb; descend; and transition across each final; without ATC advisories creating a very dangerous; unsafe; and hazardous situation in the skies above. The FLL Class C is inadequate; and out of date; and needs a major airspace change around it; whether a bigger Charlie; or a full blown Class B before it's too late.




Synopsis: Miami TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict due to a VFR aircraft climbing into the FLL final.
Date: 202003
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Recently a decision was made to limit the number of employees on the bus to provide more space in order to contain the spread of COVID-19 virus to our employees. While this is helpful and proactive it falls short of CDC guidelines which limits crowds to no more than 10. Furthermore the 6 feet separation guideline for social distancing is impossible.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported the employee bus carries more than 10 passengers and 6 feet social distancing separation is impossible.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Observer
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I am filing this report for a Mechanic because he is afraid to file [it] himself because of a threat from a Supervisor of repercussions. The Supervisor gave a directive to do a #1 service on [the] aircraft without paperwork. Both the Lead and the Mechanic said they would be happy to do the #1 service and requested it to be assigned. The Supervisor refused to assign the #1 service but then threatened them stating; 'It better get done or else there will be repercussions.' The mechanics reached out to me for guidance and as it looked like this situation was starting to escalate I returned to work. By the time I got there the Supervisor had already left but the Technician was very disturbed by what had transpired. Unless something has changed; it is the understanding of the mechanics and from the Union side that paperwork is required for everything we do on an aircraft. EVERY Mechanic is willing and happy to do a walk around/#1 service on every through flight providing a #1 service is assigned which covers the Mechanic from a FAA compliance standpoint.The front line mechanics do not understand why Management stress 'paperwork paperwork' and follow procedures and then in the next instance; direct under threat of discipline; technicians conduct maintenance without paperwork?




Synopsis: Observer reported filing report regarding paperwork requirements for another Mechanic that received a threat from the Supervisor.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: S-70/UH-60 Blackhawk/Seahawk/Pavehawk/Knighthawk
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Having listened to the ASOS (winds calm or very light); I approached the airport to land on Runway 16. No traffic was heard on UNICOM. [I] announced my position and intentions. Anonymous voice announced military helicopters hovering to the east well clear of the runway. [I] continued the approach; eventually spotting one of them well to the left of the approach end of Runway 16. [I] judged it to be OK to land. Entering the flare; I encountered very significant turbulence. [I] recovered adequately to complete a reasonable landing. With a lifetime of aviation...I'm no stranger to operations in mixed traffic. However; I had obviously not made adequate allowance for the rotor downwash from a hovering helicopter; seemingly quite a distance away and didn't realize how far that downwash can spread out along the ground in light to calm winds. After landing; I learned these were big military H-60's out doing testing on new helicopters. I welcome the military using the civilian airports; but I suggest two things. Perhaps with some liaison with them we can encourage them; when operating at uncontrolled airports; to clearly announce frequently on UNICOM the type and size of helicopter and potential for hazardous rotor downwash. Also; it may be useful to add a brief caution NOTAM advising of such activity. I've discussed this experience with the FSDO. They also encouraged me to submit it in writing via this report. Perhaps it can save some other pilots some grief!




Synopsis: C182 pilot in landing flare; encountered rotorwash turbulence from military H60 helicopters operating in the vicinity of the runway at a non-towered airport.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was flashed to R30 from BOI Approach nearly 20 minutes from the boundary with 120 in the altitude section of the flight plan. About 13 minutes later; the handoff was retracted then reattempted with 100 now in the data block. No call was attempted to coordinate this change of altitude by BOI Approach. I saved the controller from a deviation by affecting communication. The BOI Approach airspace test is a failure. It must be ended now. It is a daily occurrence to have amended altitudes not coordinated because of the 'flash as soon as they're on radar; sometimes before' mentality that has been adopted by BOI Approach. In addition to the 'flash first; do no coordination later' mantra that is repeated endlessly within the building that houses BOI Approach; there is no respect for the 7110.65 in transferring communications as soon as possible after a handoff. This sort of disregard of rules and safety are incessant when it comes to BOI Approach and something must be done about this test that is showing a blatant disregard for safety.I submitted a previous reports about an aircraft climbing to the wrong altitude and may have mixed up the times it happened.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller reports of a change to an altitude in the scratch pad area of a data tag that was changed but never coordinated. Controller reports that the BOI Approach airspace is a failure due to things not being coordinated and BOI Approach not having respect for the 7100.65.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure climbing through about 5000 ft. we had a power reduction of roughly 10 inches on the TRQ and corresponding drop of the NG to around 88-90%. The reduction of the power wasn't immediate; it took around 20 seconds for the full power reduction. We had noticed the day before at one point on a departure that the power was around 20 inches; which we thought was possibly an accidental reduction of the PCL (Power Control Lever) but didn't remember moving the PCL. When the event happened we made sure to mark the position of the PCL and verify that it wasn't moving with the power reduction. After the reduction of the power we moved the PCL forward and the power was restored to a normal level but we decided it was no longer safe to continue the flight and requested a diversion to ZZZ. We advised Departure that we were having abnormal engine indications and they gave us priority to ZZZ.After talking with Maintenance; it felt like the issue was probably either a loose linkage to the PCL or an issue with the FCU (Flight Control Unit); possibly an air leak.




Synopsis: PC-12 Captain reported an uncommanded power reduction during climb and subsequently diverted.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was Co-Captain SIC (Second in Command) in the right seat. During taxi out for departure Runway XXR at ZZZ; one of the passengers commented about it being warm in the cabin and asked if we could cool it down. I started the APU and turned the bleed air on HI. A few minutes later we were cleared to 'line up and wait' Runway XXR. About that time I smelled something abnormal. Not like electrical or plastic smoke but oily; metallic. I turned around and observed smoke filling the cabin. [Advised ATC] and told Tower we had smoke in the cabin and needed to evacuate the aircraft. I shut down the APU; escorted the passengers off the aircraft and eventually back to the FBO. The PIC (Pilot in Command) completed the engine shutdown and emergency evacuation checklist and remained with the aircraft. The ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting) crew confirmed no fire but residual smoke in the cabin and aft fuselage APU compartment. Recovery flight for the passengers was put in motion.


Second narrative: On Taxiway XX in line up to Runway XXR ZZZ; we were number 5. Passengers complained it's warm back here. The crew turned on the APU via checklist. Tower cleared [us] line up and wait. We complied; suddenly smoke filled the interior of aircraft. We the crew [advised ATC] and evacuated on Runway XXR. Ran checklists. No injuries; no damage to persons or property.


Synopsis: Fractional flight crew reported the cabin filled with smoke from a faulty APU prior to takeoff.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Climb
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out to ZZZ both airspeed disagreement cautions came on with +/- 10 knot difference between the Captain and FO (First Officer) airspeed [indicators]. Once at cruise all cautions went away and we continued. Upon descent and on the arrival we again got the 'airspeed disagreement' caution for about 5 minutes then it again disappeared. Continuing on the descent at around 16;000 ft. and in icing conditions the Captain's airspeed went to +/- 50 knots causing the throttles to chase the airspeed. I turned off the autopilot; autothrottles and both flight directors as per the QRH and quickly realized the FO side was working fine. The FO continued the descent.


Second narrative: Climbing out; passing approximately FL280 in IMC conditions; with the CA (Captain) flying; we received an 'IAS DISAGREE' indication. There was a split of approximately 10 KIAS between the CA and FO (First Officer) instruments with a corresponding split in Mach. I; the FO; got out the unreliable airspeed checklist in the QRH to look up the possible indications. After a few moments the indication disappeared and the IAS returned to normal. After beginning a descent the same indications returned and then disappeared as they had before. Passing approximately 16;000 ft. there was a large fluctuation in the CA's airspeed causing a large fluctuation in the autothrottles. The CA disengaged the autopilot and autothrottles. We transferred aircraft control since my indications seemed normal. The CA ran the QRH for unreliable airspeed [and] I flew the approach using the autopilot with the autothrottles disengaged to an uneventful landing.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported the Captain's airspeed indicator became unreliable and control was transferred to the First Officer.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Taxiway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The copilot was taxiing to the runway from the commuter air terminal. Upon reaching a right hand turn to follow the taxiway and attempting to slow the aircraft; the copilot says to me; 'I have no brakes.' I immediately reached for the brake pedals and found the left pedal all the way to the floor. We were then in a sharp right hand turn at a low speed. Attempting to pump up the hydraulic brakes with no success; I put the throttle into the reverse position to stop the aircraft. The aircraft proceeded to the right a short distance; partially off of the taxiway into a patch of dirt/grass and came to a stop. The left brake pedal was still fully depressed and non-responsive. I contacted the Tower and explained our situation. At that point; I shut down the engine and debriefed the passengers. The copilot deplaned to place the tail stand and chocks. Airport Operations were on the scene immediately to secure the area. The passengers were then deplaned and taken by foot back to the commuter terminal; approximately 200 yards away. No taxi lights were hit and the airplane was not damaged. Maintenance was called and arrived shortly to tow the aircraft back to the terminal.This aircraft has a documented history of braking issues with maintenance log revealing two prior write ups in the last week for the left brake. Corrective actions were preformed with replacing the master cylinder and entire brake lines. This aircraft was taxied and flow one prior leg today by myself with no braking issues noticed.


Second narrative: I also made a visual inspection of the front of the aircraft and prop and discovered that no damage had been caused by our incursion on to the grass area.


Synopsis: When their brakes failed during a turn while taxiing for takeoff the flight crew of a CE-208 were unable to prevent an excursion off the taxiway. The aircraft had a history of left brake srite-ups in the recent past.
Date: 201903
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: XA:00 is cut off for check in on XA:30 flight. After verifying all bags had been sent plane side I went plane side to help finish up; i.e.; bring down gate check bags/strollers; pull belts; close doors etc. At about XA:15 after being told by Gate and Lead Ramp that we were clear on ALL bags I proceeded back in to bag room with lead to finish close out. After closing out flight and finalizing flight for departure Lead Ramp realized a mistake in the loading occurred with the loading of dry ice quick packs in the forward compartment. Efforts were made by Operations to call flight back to gate; but to no avail. Aircraft departed gate XA:22 and was airborne at XA:32.


Second narrative: Quickpacks with limited quantities of Dry Ice staged and loaded in forward compartment of A320; contacted load plan and attempted to contact aircraft but was unsuccessful. Aircraft flew to ZZZ1.


Synopsis: Ramp personnel reported aircraft departed with dry ice packs erroneously loaded in forward compartment.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Gulfstream Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We encountered a Resolution Advisory while descending through 31;000 feet prior to NAVEE intersection on the HUSTN TWO arrival into KCLT. As the pilot monitoring; I turned off the flight directors; and the pilot flying turned off the auto-pilot to respond to a 'descend' command from the RA. A gulfstream on a flight test had experienced a rapid decompression and was descending on top of us from our 10 o'clock position. The guidance from the TCAS system saved us from a traffic conflict. We advised ATC; and after we were 'clear of conflict;' we proceeded to CLT without further incident. Training and the system worked perfectly.


Second narrative: [Narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew while descending through 31;000 feet responded to a 'DESCEND' RA. A Gulfstream above them was descending because of rapid decompression. They responded to the RA and were then 'clear of conflict.' 'Training and the system worked perfectly.'