elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 'GPS invalid' appeared on initial climbout. GPSs returned at 17;000 ft.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported getting a 'GPS invalid' message on departure.  The GPS systems returned to normal at 17;000 feet.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RDU.TRACON, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C RDU
ATC / advisory: TRACON RDU
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying the KAROO Arrival into RDU; I asked the First Officer to select the lowest altitude on the arrival which was 6;000 MSL. I pulled up the direct/intercept screen and looked at the VSI rates required to meet all the restrictions and I selected a VSI rate of 900 FPM which I thought would meet all the restrictions. I must have not thought it out correctly because we descended below the floor of one of the restrictions by 500 FT. I immediately noticed and entered a climb back up to the appropriate altitude. ATC said nothing to us and we continued the flight without further incident.This happened because I set an incorrect descent rate to meet all the restrictions. Also; I have learned my lesson that I should always set the individual floors of the arrivals one by one instead of just asking for the lowest altitude of the arrival to be set. If I had asked the First Officer to set the first floor; then the second; then the third and so forth this problem would never have happened. In the future I will do it that way.


Second narrative: We went 500 FT below the charted altitude crossing ARGAL...The altitude deviation occurred because the Captain put in a rate of descent that would allow us to cross the last fix [as required] versus the intermediate fixes.


Synopsis: The flight crew of a CRJ-700 failed to comply with the crossing restriction at ARGAL on the KAROO RNAV STAR to RDU.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a visual approach we were configuring the aircraft for landing. Slats were already extended to Slats 15. Captain called for Flaps 15. The slat/flap handle would not move out of the Slat 15 detent to extend the flaps to the 15 position. The slat/flap handle was cycled; but it would not extend past the Slat 15 position. A go-around was initiated and we complied with the Tower and Departure Control instructions. Departure Control was advised we needed to stay in the area to run some checklists. We ran and complied with the QRH and recalculated our airspeed and landing distance for a no flap landing. We advised Approach Control of the situation. We requested the longer runway and were told to expect [another runway] to accommodate the higher approach speed and longer landing distance. We advised Operations of the situation as well to give Maintenance a heads up. We were vectored back and landed without incident and taxied to the ramp.  We consulted with Maintenance about the problem after arrival to the gate. I followed up online to see the maintenance history of the aircraft as of today. Maintenance could not get the slat/flap handle to operate normally as well. The slat/flap handle unit was replaced according to the history and the aircraft was returned to service.




Synopsis: A300 First Officer reported flap handle would not move beyond the 'Slat 15' position. Flight crew ran the procedure and landed with zero flaps.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After an initial low approach to survey the runway; and while on a subsequent short final into a turf 1200 feet runway in hilly terrain; a sudden; powerful downdraft caused the aircraft to lose altitude and impact a utility line just prior to the approach end of [the] runway. All actions to mitigate the drop in altitude (adding full power; pitching up for maximum climb); proved unsuccessful in arresting the sink rate. The sink resulted in the propeller cutting a utility line approximately 200 feet before the runway threshold; resulting in minor damage to the propeller. A normal landing and rollout was accomplished after the impact with the utility line.




Synopsis: Light Sport Airport pilot reported cutting a power line with his propeller when a downdraft forced an altitude loss.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Cruise
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30; Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATC had us on the KEPEC3 RNAV arrival. We were cleared to 8;000 ft just passing NIPZO. We acquired traffic circling to our south. We received no notice from ATC as to the traffic. The traffic turned toward us and we received an RA. I was the pilot flying and immediately turned off the auto pilot and responded to the RA commands. My FO acted appropriately and turned on the lights and queried ATC as to the traffic and that we were responding to the RA. They replied 'Yea there is traffic circling off your 9 O'clock. The traffic was within 500 ft and directly under our position. They told us to slow to 170 and descend to 6;000 ft. As well as turn left to 330. We stated again that we were complying to an RA. Once clear of traffic we began our decent to 6;000. Our speed was reducing to 170. ATC asked our speed. We stated a speed greater than 170. They told us to slow then continue descent. We complied. We were then given vectors to RNAV 19R and a turn to intercept the final approach course. We stated that we were high and don't know if we could make it at this point. They told us a turn to the left was approved but not the right because of helicopter traffic. We made an attempt to the runway but they had left us too high and turned us in too early. I initiated a Go-around at 1500 AGL. They asked what the reason for the go-around was. We did not respond; requested vectors and an altitude. We received both back to 19R and landed without further incident. I was completely appalled as to the control received from ATC. We received no communication as to the Traffic and Poor vectors and altitude instructions.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of not being advised of traffic that ATC knew about and that the pilot received an RA on. Controller kept aircraft too high and eventually the pilot had to make a go around.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Storage
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Logbook Entry; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: AMM task 25-61-00-710-801A was unclear and not performed correctly. During Short Term Storage Aircraft Return to Service work card. Unfamiliar and unclear task. Misinterpreted Task. Have the TASK easier to follow. Have a GSE number for tools/equipment and add it to beginning as a required tool/equipment.


Second narrative: [This report narrative contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: Technicians reported tasks on work cards were unclear and technicians performed the task incorrectly.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMU.Airport, NY
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D MMU
ATC / advisory: Tower MMU
Second aircraft: Dassault-Breguet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Inbound to ZELEN IAF; New York Approach cleared us for RNAV Runway 5 approach to MMU. After crossing ZELEN at 3;000 FT; Approach handed us off to MMU Tower. While on the approach segment from ZELEN to KWITE at 3;000 FT; TCAS alerted us to traffic at our altitude. There was no warning other than the RA command to climb; which we immediately initiated; climbing to approximately 3;400 FT. We saw a single engine aircraft pass directly beneath us. I notified MMU tower of our RA. As we leveled at 3;400 FT and started a return to 3;000 FT; a Falcon crossed our path at 4;000 FT. We resumed the approach to MMU Runway 05. I contacted TRACON after parking. TRACON indicated that the conflict traffic was a VFR aircraft; not under their control. Our aircraft lighting was configured to be seen. We had position lights; beacon; strobes and pulse lights all operating.




Synopsis: A BD700 Captain reported a NMAC with a light aircraft that was not in contact with ATC on approach to MMU.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATIS was advertising LDA-R and we were set up for it. Being vectored for the approach I was still not receiving either LOC/GS. We were cleared for the LDA-DME 19 and the First Officer read it back before I could say anything. I questioned Tower and they told us they were using the LDA-DME and showed green. We were well outside the marker and I knew the approaches were very similar. I changed the LOC frequency and minimums and re-briefed the First Officer. After Bessie (1;600 FT) I continued down to our adjusted minimums of 800 FT. I inadvertently went below 1;000 FT prior to 4 DME and received a low altitude alert from the Tower. I was using FLCH. Normally I would have used FPA from the FAF but we had been left high. Remainder of approach and landing was normal. They still had not updated the ATIS after we had landed and I advised ground. If we had requested to be resequenced for the approach it may have helped by giving us additional time.




Synopsis: DCA ATIS reported the LDA-R approach active but because no LOC/GS signal was received an air carrier crew tuned the LOC; re-briefed the approach and continued to land after a low altitude alert prior to 4 DME.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Minimum Equipment List (MEL)
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Referencing B777 MEL; flight crew stated their Ipad MEL showed MEL 21-55a for the Trim Air Pressure Regulating Shut-off Valve (PSROV). Placard hard-copy printed from Maintenance computer showed MEL 21-48a for Trim Air PSROV.Flight crew noticed the MEL chapter applied in Logbook didn't correlate with their Ipad MEL. Pilot later noticed effective date in their Ipad MEL was for XB-January 2013; today is still XA-January 2013 (the day before). Also; as the MEL chapter for this issue appears to be changing; we might have an MEL conflict tomorrow with currently applied MELs. Clearly MEL should not be used until 'Effective' date; some sort of notice needs to block usage until the actual date. If MEL numbering does change; does the new MEL reflect the possibility that the numbers might not correlate?

Callback: Reporter stated he has been told the Master MEL (MMEL) has been revised that should affect all B777 Operators. He is concerned about MELs issued using the old MEL reference numbers for a specific deferral and Maintenance Procedure (M) that now have a different MEL number and possibly different (M) procedure that may be required to be accomplished prior to departure. If Maintenance performs trouble shooting on an overnight B777 that is on day two; of a five day deferral; and the revised MEL is 'Effective' on day three of the old MEL; which MEL is legal. There is no cross reference for Flight crews or Maintenance to see the original MEL and the new MEL that are applicable for the same item being deferred. Maintenance is basically blind to what happened yesterday in regards to cross referencing of the old and revised MMEL when the changes become 'effective'.Reporter stated there are controls in the Ipad ACROBAT program and reader that would not display the revised MMEL until the actual 'Effective date'. His Air Carrier does not believe the issues raised are a high priority; no actions on his suggestions have been noted. Reporter also noted the B777 uses PSROVs in their Air Conditioning System; not just on the aircraft's engines.



Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports that flight crews are referring to B777 MEL references on their Ipads that are not yet 'Effective' for items deferred by Maintenance. Concerns also rose about different MEL section reference numbers and different Maintenance (M) procedures between the old and revised Master MEL (MMEL).
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After landing at ZZZ Ground Control directed us to wait on taxiway B short of Q1; then turn and stop on taxiway A to wait for our gate. While stopped at the Taxiway A location pointing east; with throttles in idle thrust awaiting our gate to open; a loosely wadded roll of clear plastic approximately 15 feet in width and 3 feet in diameter driven by the wind tumbled and rolled (reported surface winds were 290/19) toward the aircraft from our 1 o'clock position across our nose (about 50 feet in front of the nose) toward the left wing. As it passed in front of the aircraft nose; I asked the Captain; 'Does it look like that FOD will go in the engine?' Radio chatter prevented a timely verbal reply; and seconds later; as the Captain turned his head to look at the left engine nacelle; the number 1 engine (left nacelle) shuddered and stopped with an amber 'engine fail' indication on the center display panel. The Captain remarked that the plastic had just entered the engine intake. The Captain then directed me to cut off the number one engine after transferring the electrical bus to the APU; which was already running. No fire warnings or high EGT indications happened. The engine shuddered and stopped abruptly. While we were executing the engine failure checklist in the QRH; a regional jet behind us reported small flames at the bottom back section of our left engine on Ground Control radio frequency. We then coordinated with responding fire department; maintenance; operations; and ground control to 1) verify the fire was out; 2) that the jet was safe to move to the gate; and 3) that no evacuation was needed. After getting the needed approval by the fire department and maintenance representatives; we then taxied into parking and deplaned the passengers without further incident. We also pointed out other multiple similar pieces of nearby drifting rubbish to field operations personnel and request that they clean them up before they created another similar hazard.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported the left engine shut down abruptly after ingesting a large piece of plastic FOD while waiting for their gate on a taxiway.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise flight about an hour from coast out the First Officer and I were attempting to correct an excessive and chronic cabin heating problem when we lost control of the cabin pressure. The cabin altitude began a two thousand FPM climb which we could not arrest. We donned oxygen masks and accomplished the CABIN ALTITUDE/EMERGENCY DESCENT checklist. We requested and received clearance to descend to 10;000 FT. While in the descent the cabin altitude reached approximately 13;000 FT. After leveling off we were able to pressurize the cabin to about 2;000 FT and made the decision to return to our departure airport. The cabin altitude was above 10;000 FT for only a few minutes and the passenger oxygen masks never deployed. We decided to land overweight due no dump capability and another hour aloft was needed to burn down to maximum landing weight. Lead Flight Attendant did not report any anomalies in the cabin and no passenger issues. After landing and debriefing Maintenance; we discovered the aircraft had had a pressurization problem four days earlier.


Second narrative: After landing; we experienced ice chunks and water coming out of the vents. Talking to Maintenance; we found out that the aircraft had a pressurization problem four days earlier.


Synopsis: Following the loss of cabin pressurization a B757 flight crew initiated an emergency descent; declared and emergency and returned to their departure airport.