elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Attitude Indicator(Gyro/Horizon/ADI)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after departing; I realized that both attitude indicators were inoperative. With the low clouds and darkness I decided to return [to departure airport] and troubleshoot the problem on the ground. Shortly before landing I noticed that both inverter annunciators were illuminated.After landing and exiting the runway; I cycled the inverter switch and found both inverters to be operational. I contacted dispatch to file another flight plan and [continued] without further incident.




Synopsis: SA-227 Captain reported losing both attitude indicators shortly after takeoff. Flight returned to departure airport where the issue was resolved.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Exiting Runway 27C after landing; ATC issued issued instructions to taxi on Runway 4L; A1; and B. After turning onto 4L I began to look for the A1 signs; but didn't see any. I slowed the airplane; and confirmed with my First Officer that the unmarked taxiway was indeed A1. We came to an agreement; and verified as we proceeded down the taxiway by referencing a one-directional further down the taxiway. After looking at the sign to confirm; I noticed that I had inadvertently passed a hold short line for what appeared to be Runway 27L. The runway is closed and deactivated for construction; and no signage was present to denote the entrance to a runway. To further complicate the matter; the runway surface isn't depicted on the Jepp 10-9 taxiway diagram; making it seem like the runway is acting as a taxiway. It wasn't clear speaking with ATC after the fact if this is indeed the case. [Caused by] poor airport layout combined with poor charting were the primary causes that led us to inadvertently cross the hold-short line for the closed runway. The controller's instructions should have included a clearance to cross the closed runway; however confusion on the state of the runway led the controller to neglect the instruction. Suggest the NOTAMs included outages of both signs and lights concerning Runway 27L. With between 50-100 NOTAMS at ORD it is very difficult to discern where certain signs and lights are located. The airport needs to do a better job of signage if that taxi-route is used more frequently to avoid confusion.




Synopsis: Regional Jet Captain reported confusion with the amount of ORD NOTAMS; poor signage and charting; which resulted in taxiway and runway incursion.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Cessna 180 Skywagon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Aileron
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Airframe
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Pilot said aircraft was flying out of trim. Maintenance adjusted and flew aircraft after preflight. Trim was adjusted and second flight made. On second flight left hand aileron moved back from outboard hinge. Aircraft was flown back to airport. Found left outboard hinge pin missing and aileron bent.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Inspector reported the loss of an aileron hinge pin during a test flight following adjustments for an out of trim condition.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was a photo flight who had been delaying at FL200 for over an hour in Sector 29's and my airspace at Sector 44.  Sector 29 called me and told me that Paradise (NCT) was going to descend Aircraft X to FL190.  I approved this.  I had accepted a handoff on Aircraft Y from Paradise sector (NCT) direct FMG climbing to FL190 who would be in conflict with Aircraft X.  I called Paradise and verified they were descending Aircraft X to FL190.  They said yes.  I instructed Paradise to stop Aircraft Y at 170 for Aircraft X.  Paradise asked if they could turn him and get higher.  I said no; just stop Aircraft Y at 170.  Then Paradise made a request on another aircraft which we worked out a solution for.  Less than a minute later Aircraft X is turning toward Aircraft Y descending to FL190 and Aircraft Y checks on climbing out of 160 to FL190.  I asked Aircraft Y to say again and he again says climbing to FL190.  I stopped Aircraft X at 170. Paradise sector was obviously busy.  If they did not have two people working the sector maybe that would have helped.  Maybe if they had a way to enter altitudes on scope that would have helped.  Paradise probably forgot to stop the Aircraft Y because he was thinking of the other aircraft he coordinated on.  All of this happened right at the boundary where sector 29 owns a shelf of 200 to 230 up against 44's airspace.  If NCT owned up to FL230; like they did in the past; Paradise could have done his plan without having to coordinate with me and Sector 29.  I recommend that NCT's airspace be raised back up to FL230.  This would eliminate this shelf that causes many problems in at least 4 ZOA sectors.




Synopsis: NCT Controller reports of airborne conflict due to another Controller not complying with prior coordination.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were training on the D-Side (Handoff/Coordinator) and coordinated the aircraft direct ZZZ so that the Radar Controller could clear the aircraft direct when he was above the MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude). The Radar Controller instead issued the airborne IFR clearance via direct. We must solicit pilot concurrence.




Synopsis: ZAB ARTCC Controller conducting on the job training on the sector's D-Side (Handoff/Coordinator) observed the Radar Controller issue an IFR clearance to an aircraft that was below the Minimum IFR Altitude.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
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: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: FSS called for the departure of Aircraft X. I examined the flight plan to see if the 10;000 ft cruise altitude was safe. I thought that the aircraft would be departing northbound. The MEA (Minimum Enroute Altitude) northbound was 9;000 ft so I felt that the requested cruise of 10;000 ft was safe. I issued the clearance as filed. The aircraft called my frequency after departing and was not yet on radar. Under the assumption that the aircraft was proceeding northbound; I told the aircraft to report a point which was the boundary with the adjacent sector. Minutes later the pilot called and said if I still needed the position report since he was on the ODP (Obstruction Departure Procedure).At that point I had him on radar and told him the report was no longer necessary and I proceeded to radar identify him. I was busy with traffic in the southeast corner of my airspace which took my attention away. I went back a few minutes later to check on Aircraft X and noticed he was west of the airway nothland I asked if he was established on the airway. The pilot reported he was still on the ODP. I acknowledged and went back to my other traffic. I went back again minutes later and saw the aircraft was southbound. That is when I drew a route line and discovered that he filed the airway southwest bound.That is when I rechecked the MEA to discover it was 12;000 ft and he was in a 11;000 ft Minimum IFR Area. I immediately climbed him to 11;000 ft for the terrain. At no point did the MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude warning) activate. I reevaluated the route for minimum altitudes. 11;000 ft was safe for the MIA; but the MEA on the airway would be 11;100 ft. I asked if the pilot if he would be able 12;000 ft. He said maybe. Since 11;000 ft was safe for the MIA I told him to expect to remain at 11;000 ft.For routes from small airports; I need to make a better evaluation and especially check the route once the flight plan has been activated while also drawing the route in the EDST.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported they did not recognize the route an aircraft filed placed it below the Minimum IFR Altitudes.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
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
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Go around from flare on Runway 27. Wake turbulence from preceding aircraft associated with low level wind shifting and too tight ATC spacing. Go around per SOP was performed as trained.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported executing a go-around at SAN after encountering wake turbulence just before touchdown. Reporter stated the ATC spacing was 'too tight'.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Light: Dusk
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: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Company Policy
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I was working a flight when an agent ([Company] airline vendor for wheelchair service) was taking a wheelchair down the jet bridge to store for the next inbound flight. The wheelchair would be in the way while we boarded the flight and would be in danger of jet bridge and wheelchair damage when the jet bridge was retracted for departure. Aircraft damage could also happen if there is an unaccompanied wheelchair rolling into the aircraft with no agents around.  I have contacted [Company] supervisors and the [Company] Safety supervisor and [Vendor] supervisor as well as individual [Vendor] agents for the last two months but this is still happening. I am worried that a passenger will be injured in the limited space left in the small jet bridge. I am also concerned that there may be jet bridge damage from a wheelchair becoming jammed while the jet bridge is being retracted. I think the best thing is to not store wheelchairs anywhere inside the jet bridge. Wheelchairs should only be on a jet bridge when it is accompanied by a wheelchair agent.




Synopsis: A Jet Bridge Operator reported that a wheelchair stored in the jet bridge is a hazard to passengers during boarding.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cabin Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were level at 33;000 FT when the Flight Attendants notified us that a cabin window had cracked at seat 41A.  They said that it was the outer pane.  Reportedly; made a loud bang sound when it cracked.  Captain went to cabin to look and confirmed the outer window had a crack running in a jagged pattern from the top to bottom.  Via ACARS; we talked to Maintenance Control and Dispatch.  We agreed the safest action was to return to our departure airport.  ATC cleared us to descend; turn around and proceed direct.  We had dispatch send us landing performance data; read through the diversion page in the FOM and made a normal approach and landing.




Synopsis: A B767-300 returned to its departure airport when the outer pane of a passenger window cracked.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B BWI
ATC / advisory: Tower BWI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Cleared for a visual approach from the northeast. Descended to 2100 feet within one mile of Final Approach Fix to turn final. Tower said check altitude for low altitude warning. We responded we were at 2100 feet.Extend final to BMORE at 2500 feet.




Synopsis: An aircraft conducting a Visual Approach was issued a low altitude warning by the Tower. The aircraft was at an appropriate altitude for fixes on the approach.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on the EWR ILS 4R approach; in visual conditions. Tower notified all traffic; that there were several reports of a drone at 1000 ft near the Linden area. We had an FO; who was in the jumpseat; was dedicated to watching out for the drone. At 850 ft; over the refinery; on the left side of the aircraft; the FO spotted a white drone. He said; 'Oh my gosh that was close. That's a near miss'. It was within 100 ft from our aircraft. We notified ATC immediately of the near miss. FO in the right seat and I were focused forward and never saw the drone. He asked if tower notified anyone about the drone. ATC remarked that they had called 4 times. We did not notify dispatch in a timely manner. It was a few hours after we landed that they were notified.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported that during final approach to EWR Runway 4R they encountered a drone within 100 feet of the aircraft.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out with First Officer flying at approximately 17;000 FT; we received ECAM; Air Engine 1 Bleed Fault. ECAM procedures followed immediately. After completion of ECAM procedures and as follow up with FM was started; both pilots noticed an increase in heat in the cockpit and hypoxia type symptoms. Both pilots' donned oxygen masks; emergency declared; descent initiated; and return to [departure airport]. I looked at pressurization initially when ECAM occurred and I did not notice any abnormalities with pressure. The only abnormal indication was an elevated (300 C) temperature and amber warning on Engine 1 Bleed Air. All valves in system reacted as expected and no further incidents reported. Neither flight attendants nor passengers reported any symptoms. Overweight landing procedure followed. After completion of flight; both pilots still felt physiological symptoms and both visited a medical facility; I was cleared to return to flight status with no restrictions.


Second narrative: During climb at approximately 17;000 FT got 'AIR-Eng 1 Bleed Fault' ECAM. Captain (as pilot not flying) performed ECAM procedure and then followed up with Flight Manual procedure. I turned on autopilot. Captain and I (within a couple of minutes) both started feeling hypoxic and both donned O2 masks. Captain got descent clearance to 10;000 FT and subsequently got clearance to return and declared and emergency; Captain also notified Dispatch; flight attendant crew and passengers of our return. Captain completed 'Overweight Landing' checklist. Landed and taxied to gate without further incident; completed Maintenance reports for AIR Eng 1 Bleed Fault and overweight landing. During taxi to gate; flight attendants said that no passengers complained of feeling ill. After gate arrival both Captain and I still felt crummy from hypoxic event.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reports Air Engine 1 Bleed Fault during climb and compliance with ECAM actions. Both pilots notice increased heat in the cockpit and begin to feel hypoxia-like symptoms although cabin pressure is apparently normal. Oxygen masks are donned; an emergency is declared; and flight returns to departure airport.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was on a standardization flight in the Seminole. We had done multiple practice approaches and were on the last one; the ILS 31. At FAF I brought the gear down and verified 3 green lights; no red; [and] 1 in the mirror with the other instructor pilot. At 1;000 feet MSL we did another GUMPS check. The touchdown was normal and on centerline about 1;500 feet from the approach end. The nose gear collapsed after touchdown and the reduced clearance caused the propellers to strike the surface of the runway. We cutoff the mixtures; made a report to Tower and then turned everything off.




Synopsis: A PA-44 pilot verified three green gear down lock lights and completed the landing checklist but the nose gear collapsed on landing causing some damage but no injuries.