elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On IFR flight plan to ECP. Weather was rapidly deteriorating accompanied by severe thunderstorms and moderate to extreme precipitation. Aircraft is equipped with NEXRAD weather; but not on-board sweeping weather radar. Approximately 30 miles from severe reported weather (as reported by prior aircraft and confirmed by NEXRAD equipment) I attempted to change destination to CEW to avoid entering extreme weather exceeding capability of aircraft. Requested change of destination from filed destination (ECP) to CEW approximately three times over 5 minute period. ATC did not acknowledge transmission; and descended aircraft to assigned altitude of 17;000. During descent to 17;000 ATC advised to level off at 18;000. I then advised ATC that if I could get descent below 18;000 I would cancel IFR clearance and precede VFR. ATC advised 'standby' and then assigned 17;000. During descent below 18;000 I requested to 'cancel IFR' more than once to remain VFR prior to entering extreme weather and precede VFR; but transmission was not acknowledged. After announcing to Controller I was canceling IFR aircraft descended below last assigned IFR cleared altitude of 17;000. Aircraft descended to approximately 16;300 MSL at which time ATC advised assigned altitude was 17;000. Better flight planning and earlier decision making regarding a more suitable alternate would have mitigated problem. This would have given ATC and me more time to sequence and plan aircraft's intended course of action.




Synopsis: EA500 Captain reports communication difficulties with ATC while attempting to change destination or descend and and cancel IFR due to weather. A deviation below the ATC assigned altitude of 17;000 FT occurs prior to the Controller acknowledging IFR cancellation request.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had a left engine fire on taxiway just off [the] runway. I read through the Left engine fire in flight procedure on the QRC. After realizing my mistake we completed the engine fire on ground procedure. The intensity of the emergency made me feel rushed and I didn't read the QRC procedure title before following the procedure.




Synopsis: CRJ700 First Officer reported an engine fire during taxi. He initially used the Inflight Checklist instead of the Engine Fire on Ground Checklist.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending out of 18;000 feet we lost the quantity and pressure on the green hydraulic system. We accomplished the appropriate checklists and set up for the approach. During the approach; the flaps would not extend with the use of the other two hydraulic systems. After we manually lowered the gear; the hydraulic fluid in the green system indicated a return to the normal level. At that point; we conferred with maintenance control and elected to use the green system electric pumps to lower the flaps which was not called for in the checklist. The flaps extended to the full position and we continued the approach and landing without incident.


Second narrative: Descending out of FL180 we lost the quantity and pressure on the green hydraulic system. We ran the checklist and then set up for the approach. When we went to put the flaps out they did not extend so we discontinued the approach and we noticed that after we manually extended the landing gear the green system hydraulics now showed normal pressure and quantity. We then conferred with maintenance control and elected to use the green system electric pumps to lower the flaps which was not called for in the checklist; but because the yellow system was not working to extend the flaps and we now had full green pressure and quantity with the engine pumps now off we felt it was a safer option to use the electric pumps and land with full flaps.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported loss of green hydraulic system quantity and pressure on descent; but the system reportedly returned to normal later in the approach.
Date: 201604
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Flap
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
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach at approximately 4000 ft MSL ATC slowed us to 180 from 220. When I asked the FO (First Officer) PM (Pilot Monitoring) for Flaps 1 almost immediately we got an EICAS message of LE (Leading Edge) FLAP ASYM. We broke off the approach and circled for approximately 10 minutes while we worked the QRH. I remained the PF (Pilot Flying) and the FO ran the checklist. We managed to get the TE (Trailing Edge) flaps to 20 and setup for a non-normal landing. The FAs (Flight Attendants) were briefed; a message was sent thru ACARS to [maintenance] and Dispatch. [ATC was advised] and the fire trucks were asked to be standing by. Our approach speed was 172 KIAS; however the low speed yellow band was right at that speed; so I elected to fly at 175 to 180 KIAS. We briefed the approach and flew the ILS to RWY 25L. An uneventful landing was made using AUTOBRAKES 3 and full reverse. We taxied to the [gate] with minimal brake temp rise; one wheel on the right truck showed 6 by the time we left the (Aircraft); the others were at 5. I floated a bit on touch down due to the sight picture; speed; and darkness; but managed to exit just past midfield. All in all I think the FO and I managed the [situation] well with great CRM (Crew Resource Management); communications and teamwork. The FO did an excellent job throughout the incident.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported receiving an EICAS message LE FLAPS ASYM on approach.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: B777-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: ZWG called with a hand off for Air Carrier X; asking if I had Flight Plan (FP) information. I looked in ERAM and found none; so instructed ZWG; the aircraft was POA and to keep the aircraft coming while I had FDCS get the FP into ERAM. The aircraft was just crossing into ZMP as I was notified FDCS was entering the FP; so I called RADAR contact and communications change. It was another 40-50 NM before the FP was available; simply due to its length (International.) There was no 'error' per se in this event; but the lack of FP info with Air Carrier X flights is becoming more and more routine. Rumor has it there may be something non-standard; or at least something ERAM doesn't understand in the remarks section of the FP. However; querying the FDCS specialist about this flight; there was nothing obvious or changed. Recommendation; best option would be for NAS and NAVCANADA computers to allow the same functionality we have domestically: Add/Find of a flight. Alternatively; the moment NAVCANADA gets an error message; it would be prudent for them to contact ZMP; versus waiting until the hand off distance from boundaries.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller described an equipment issue when no information was available via the ERAM on an aircraft arriving from Canadian airspace; the reporter suggesting more same type functionalities between US and Canadian equipment.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC; Class E GTF
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After experiencing some abdominal discomfort and diarrhea I decided I was still feeling well enough to depart and climb to 23000 feet. After leveling off with the auto pilot engaged I started feeling sick and asked for a sick sack. At that time; according to the flight nurses onboard; I passed out for 30-45 seconds and woke up again. I diverted to another airport that was close and VFR and landed safely.




Synopsis: Air taxi pilot reported passing out during the flight in a single pilot operation.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending into ZZZ; we received an RA from a VFR traffic crossing our path below us at approximately 5;500 ft. MSL. We were descending to initially 3;000 ft. MSL to setup for landing on Runway XX (VMC conditions prevailed and the ATIS advertised a visual to Runway XX); but then were told to maintain 6;000 ft. MSL by Center for VFR traffic she was not talking to in our path. Hearing and seeing this scenario develop we shallowed our descent rate to level at 6;000 ft. MSL in an attempt to mitigate a predictive RA scenario. Once level and seeing the traffic was continuing in our direction; we also attempted a turn to avoid the traffic prior to the RA; however the frequency was congested and the turn was too late. Once we received permission to turn and initiated it; we ended up receiving the RA. We complied with the RA; disengaged the autopilot; and also climbed to approximately 6;500 ft. MSL to avoid the traffic showing at one point 400 ft. below us and advised Center of the RA. We were given permission to climb and; once clear of the conflict; to proceed to ZZZ without further issue.The event occurred due to a few factors coming together. The main issue is that the VFR aircraft was maneuvering without talking to ATC so as to avoid traffic. It was also a beautiful day; so there was a lot of GA aircraft the Controller was working with causing the frequency to become very congested. Secondly; the Controller should have issued us a vector or higher altitude to maintain to avoid the traffic as we never had or called aircraft in sight. We could have tried to turn earlier; but the congestion on the frequency prevented this from happening as well.I feel that this issue could have been prevented had the Controller issued us a higher level off altitude; or given us a vector once it was determined that the VFR target could become an issue. I feel that we tried our best to avoid this scenario by shallowing our descent and even requesting a turn. It just came down to the VFR traffic had an unpredictable flight path; the frequency was very congested; and once we received our clearance to turn it was too late.




Synopsis: First Officer of a CRJ-200 reported an RA while descending towards destination and cited the large amount of GA aircraft in the area as a contributing factor.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While flying the approach to Runway 22 at LGA; ATC had us on a 040 downwind heading at 4000'. Abeam the field heading was adjusted to 060 then 070. ATC cleared us left to 190 and descend to 2000' to intercept 22 LOC. This heading gave us an intercept well inside the FAF with a 36 KTS undershooting crosswind. Declared field insight and was cleared for the visual. I configured immediately as I was quite high and left of a good intercept course. I turned off automation and hand flew the aircraft planning on intercepting the course and glideslope just inside the FAF. During my maneuvering I was issued a low altitude alert by tower; which is was correcting at the call. Intercepted course and glideslope at approximately 1200' and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving a low-altitude alert from LGA Tower while maneuvering to intercept the localizer and glideslope.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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 Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: 3 different 'events' for Special Use Airspace (SUA) all back to back and or adjacent airspace. Aircraft requesting (aircraft X and aircraft Y) SUA have different events with the same start/end times. Aircraft Y has the wrong event number and shows up early. This creates a coordination nightmare to delay the aircraft outside the airspace when it is active with another user. Also; Aircraft Y's wingman called for clearance and exited the airspace late.Using event numbers is cumbersome and creates more work for the controller since they have to be verified on the airspace strip and the flight plan remarks. This requires the controller to have more 'heads down' time or time looking away from the scope. Previously we used call signs for who is requesting to use SUA and that procedure was less of a workload to the controller because he or she didn't have to verify for example that aircraft Y has event ZZZ and that SUA Area is also event ZZZ and that the start time is XA:50 and Aircraft X isn't early. Sounds confusing right? I can provide more examples if need be for reasons why event numbers are more workload intensive for the controller compared to previous procedures.No overlap on events or missions start/end times. I would suggest a 10 minute gap as an example. Create a workgroup with all parties to come up with a safer procedure. Go back to the previous procedure using call signs instead of event numbers until a new procedure is in place since using call signs seems to be safer for the sector.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported military aircraft in and out times and schedules for special use airspace were not correct and procedures for ensuring entry exit are unnecessarily cumbersome.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Other Flight Test
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Other Flight Test
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircrew was cleared an ILS 16R approach at PAE in daylight VMC. At JUGBA; Seattle Approach warned us of VFR traffic; a Cessna 172; heading in a direction to cross the ILS approach. The traffic was not in communication with Approach. However; the traffic was in communication with the Tower. After JUGBA; Seattle asked us to break off the approach. We were just about to; however; the traffic turned towards the airplane; and an RA occurred. The C172 looked closer than 500 feet. We descended and turned away from the C172. Once the traffic was behind us; we resumed the flight with no other events.




Synopsis: B737 Captain on the ILS 16R to PAE reports a NMAC with a C172 just inside JUGBA. The C172 was talking to the Tower and the B737 was talking to Approach. A TCAS RA is received and complied with along with a turn away from the traffic.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Spent the morning examining and flying an experimental Smyth Sidewinder. The aircraft was being purchased by a friend.  ASOS reported wind 310 degrees 19 gusting to 27. Started the approach in light turbulence. On touchdown; the aircraft made a sharp turn to the left. I was unable to keep it on the runway with full right rudder and braking and struck a sign along the side of the runway.




Synopsis: Smyth Sidewinder pilot reported losing directional control on the landing roll; departed the runway; and struck a sign.