elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-8
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Lost engine on take off; landed on same runway as took off.  During landing roll used intersection #1 to exit and clear runway.




Synopsis: Pilot reported they lost the engine on take off and landed on the same runway as used for take off.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We are working approach control airspace as part of a COVID-19 mitigation plan. Aircraft X was on approach to ZZZ; which is in Approach airspace; when Approach called and asked for a block for an approach in ZZZ1.  I had previously told a Controller at [another facility] that I would not be able to approve that approach because I was blocking for the aircraft into ZZZ.  When [other facility] called back and asked again for the block for ZZZ1 I again told them no.  The other Controller began to question me.  I explained the block that I needed and he still seemed confused.  I then was trying to get off the line to get back to my traffic.  I then said 'If you can keep him clear' and that I couldn't authorize the approach with my rules.  [Other facility] then said they could give him an alternate missed approach.  While I don't believe I specifically approved the approach my language may have been interpreted as authorizing the approach.  At the time I was thinking that the approach may have some procedure that I was not aware of that would allow the approach to run but upon rereading the Center SOP I do not believe that would be the case.  While I don't believe that the aircraft lost separation with each other or specifically with protected airspace they may have been on approach at the same time which is not allowed by the Center SOP.I do not believe that these approaches conflict as published and the restriction can be removed.  However; we also need more concise rules about what approaches we can and cannot run.  Our procedures were designed for the Midnight shift with low traffic and when we run the day shift we face a lot of delays because our rules are not as lenient as the approach controls that usually run the airspace.  When I have tried actually determine if these approaches conflict I keep running into problems because I am not sure who to contact and can never get concrete answers.  A central office that could evaluate the procedures; or someone in the center specifically trained in approaches who could determine whether or not they conflict would be helpful.




Synopsis: Center Controller also working Approach Control airspace due to the COVID-19 pandemic; reported communication issues with another Approach facility resulting in an airborne conflict.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I issued an incorrect altitude to Aircraft X on a crossing restriction. (A point-out to Sector X; was approved descending to FL250.) I cleared Aircraft X to cross ZZZZZ at FL230. The pilot readback FL230 correctly. FL230 is not in my area of jurisdiction. I did; however; type the intended altitude of FL250 into the data block; and subsequently made a handoff to the Sector Y. The receiving controller at Sector Y alerted me of the error when the pilot checked in vacating FL250 for FL230. Separation was not lost with any surrounding aircraft. However; this did cause a violation of airspace with Sector Z; whose area of jurisdiction is FL230 and below. I cannot recall issuing the incorrect altitude. Traffic was light and not complex. Although I felt rested and capably; my focus was obviously not where it should have been. I do not remember being distracted. But; there were conversations about the current state of affairs regarding the government shutdown; lack of funding; and potential resolutions and/or outcomes. Consciously and subconsciously; I have been very concerned about my personal financial situation since the start of the shutdown. With each passing day my worries grow and fears fester. My sleep patterns have become increasingly intermittent despite proper fatigue mitigation techniques. I feel extremely exhausted and stressed by this situation. I worry for the health and safety of my wife and children. I wonder how am I going to support my family as my financial savings dwindle ever closer to zero. My focus is obviously not where it should be. In order to perform my duties I must have absolute attention and focus. I have reached the demoralizing conclusion that I am no longer in control of my financial situation. This burden must be relieved in order to regain my focus.




Synopsis: ZNY Center Controller reported an airspace violation due to external distractions.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MBB-BK 117 All Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I am aware that the construction adjacent to the hospital; and the 3 cranes operating in close proximity to the helipad have been an ongoing issue. However; it has been passed on to me that if the cranes are not moving and they do not prevent an approach into an acceptable wind azimuth it is preferred to land at the hospital for the patient transfer. I was on approach on a patient and crew drop off; when I and the crewmembers did not observe crane movement so completed the landing. However; after the crew and patient disembarked I was to reposition for fuel and was ready for takeoff when the crane closest to the helipad swung from South to North counter-clockwise; above and to the left of the rotor disk. Had I lifted; the potential for collision was extreme; and if I had parked facing the South instead of North; I would not have even been able to see if the crane was is operation due to the hospital building entrance. After the crane cleared; I picked up to a hover and made sure I could depart away from the crane before it resumed operation. I find it hard to believe this is a standard operating procedure. I am aware that if it seems unsafe because the crane is in motion; the other options are to land at nearby locations. However; everything was safe for approach; but then not for takeoff. At that point it is too late to land somewhere else.I feel the need to be in direct communication with the crane operators instead of gambling on if they are going to have the patience for us to perform our job and jeopardize my team's safety. These cranes already present an obstacle issue in the stationary position.




Synopsis: BK-117 medevac pilot reported construction cranes near a hospital helicopter pad pose a serious threat to the operation as there is no communication between them and the aircraft.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Putting the gear down; the left main light did not illuminate. The decision was made to go around. Eventually after about 15 seconds; the left main gear down and locked light did illuminate. However the decision was already made to not land. Approach gave us a heading of 180 and altitude of 6;000 ft. We cycled the gear one more time and experienced the same. The left main gear did not illuminate down and locked until about 15 seconds after the selection of gear down. The QRH was handed to the First Officer; the correct procedure was selected (Gear will not extend hydraulically) and run through the process. Since all three gear down and locked lights were on; it was determined through the flow chart that the aircraft was safe to continue to land. The landing was without incident and we were able to taxi to the gate.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: C402 flight crew reported executing a go-around after the left main gear was slow to indicate down and locked.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Other banner towing
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Banner Tow
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Other banner towing
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was talking to ZZZ Tower and they said I was barely in the TFR at [the stadium].  I told them there was no TFR because the Stadium seating capacity was [less than 30;000].  For the TFR to be in effect; the stadium must hold 30;000 or more.  I told [Tower] that I had an email from the FAA to confirm there is no TFR.  I flew more to the South to make the controller happy.  According to my GPS; I was less than 1/4 mile in the TFR circle.  There is still ongoing debates with the [sports teams]; TRACON and the FAA whether or not there was a TFR or not.  If you read the FDC/NOTAM; it's very clear that the TFR was not in effect because of the seating capacity.




Synopsis: Banner towing pilot reported adjusting flight course to remain clear of ambiguous ATC warning of possible TFR penetration.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: FSS ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 5;500 FT the engine began running rough then experienced a significant loss of power. I attempted unsuccessfully to fix the problem with the checklist then declared an emergency with the FSS with whom I had just opened my flight plan. The FSS specialist coordinated with the other ATC facilities in the area; provided winds on the surface and helped work through the situation with me. The airplane was having trouble holding altitude and so was descending slowly. The nearest airport was a military airport and I opted to land there. I landed successfully and taxied the airplane to a parking spot. After some troubleshooting it was determined that the #2 cylinder exhaust valve was stuck open.In hindsight; declaring an emergency and landing at the military field was the right thing to do. Even though it took a lot of coordination to get the airplane fixed and out of there; we were able to make it all work and we will never know what could have happened if we had tried to go another two or three NM to the next airport.A week later; the airplane was flown home.




Synopsis: A C-150 pilot opted to declare an emergency and land at the nearest suitable airport; a military field; following a significant loss of power due to a swallowed valve in the number two cylinder.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On ground the flight attendants reported egg/sulfur smell around Row 18 was burning their eyes. Maintenance performed test on APU bleed which showed normal. Maintenance decided to MEL rear chillers as a possible source of the smell. [We] departed approximately one hour late. Approximately one hour fifteen minutes into the flight the flight attendants reported the smell had returned around Row 18; and a 'leather' smell. Ten minutes later; the flight attendants reported an acrid smell of 'electrical'. Decision was made to divert to an airport 100 mile to our right. En route had flight attendants turn off reading lights around Row 18 and overheard lights. Odor seemed to start to dissipate. [After a] normal approach and landing aircraft left awaiting Company Maintenance. The crew deadheaded. Maintenance was not able to locate proper source of odor before departure.

Callback: The Reporter stated that he contacted his Chief Pilot for the cause of this event and was told that the odor was the result of an overheated electrical light ballast in the cabin sidewall overheating. In retrospect he felt his decision to turn cabin lights off was a worthwhile action.



Synopsis: An A319 flight attendant crew reported an egg/sulfur smell near Row 18 prior to flight but Maintenance found no cause. During flight; the odor returned so the Captain diverted to an enroute airport and was later told the cause was an overheated cabin sidewall electrical light ballast.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Minimum Equipment List (MEL)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; MEL; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: The aircraft flown had 2 MELs which could not be flown with together; XX-YY-01-1 and XX-YY-02-1. Consecutively these were DU4 Inop and MCDU 1 inop. The Captain and I did not catch the discrepancy and flew the flight without consequence. [I suggest a] more thorough briefing of MELs.




Synopsis: First Officer reported that the aircraft was operated with two open MELs that were not authorized for operation together.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Following release of skydivers at 9;000 feet MSL; I set RPM at 2;300 and manifold pressure of 15 in. Hg; the bottom of the green arc. The settings were maintained throughout the descent. I maintained a steep descent by using a side slip alternating left and right using full rudder. While in a slip between 3;000-5;000 feet the engine lost power. My first thought was that I had unported the fuel tank drain so I leveled the wings and pitched for level flight but the engine did not recover. I checked every cause I could think of but don't remember the order. The engine instruments were all in the green except manifold pressure. I knew the conditions were conducive to carburetor ice so I pulled the carb heat. I am not sure how long I left it on but when I did not hear any change in engine performance I turned it off. I alternated tanks on the fuel selector valve several times before putting it back on both. I realized I was not going to make the field so I selected a hay field and landed. I pulled the carb heat halfway out at some point on the final descent because that's where it was when I shut the engine down at the end of the landing roll. The engine was making power and running smoothly at the end of the landing roll. I am now convinced I had carburetor ice which I failed to recognize because I did not leave the carburetor heat on long enough.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported an engine failure in descent; resulting in an off-airport landing.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Stearman
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I inadvertently went off left side of hard-surface runway onto grass; incurring minor fabric damage to underside of lower left wing due to contact with a runway light. I returned to the hard surface during rollout. I had performed 12 previous landings within the past 90 days. There was a slight left-hand crosswind but it was not a factor. I landed on speed; stabilized; with no bounce. The swerving started after tailwheel contacted runway. I failed to correct the swerving enough to keep airplane on hard surface.I had a front-seat passenger which degrades forward visibility. Most of my flying is solo. Stearman likes to swerve; especially on hard surface and requires close attention all the way down to taxi speed. I attribute this event mainly to minimal landing practice in past 90 days; not reacting promptly enough with correct control input and indecision about going around.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Stearman believed the lack of recent landing experience and the obstruction of vision due to a front seat passenger contributed to his loss of control; runway excursion and collision with a landing light after touch down.