elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While climbing to cruise altitude of FL230 we noticed fluctuations of 50 to 100 lbs of torque on the right engine. While looking for a cause and leveling at our cruise altitude we observed the oil pressure of the right engine dropping down below 20 psi. We contacted ATC requested a turn back towards our departure airport while we trouble shooted the problem. During the initial climb and enroute climb the engine instruments were scanned and all parameters were correct; in limits; and matching. After a short check of the engine and the oil pressure dropping more; it was determined that a precautionary shutdown was required to prevent any damage to the engine.We then decided that a landing was required since only one engine was operating. A safe landing was accomplished without any further issues.Maintenance personnel checked out the aircraft [and] it was determined that the right engine dipstick was not properly locked in place and sometime in the final segment of the climb to cruise the dipstick came loose. Oil then leaked out of the engine causing the low oil pressure. The engine was then serviced per the Beechcraft Maintenance Manual and returned to service.The takeaway from this event is to have everyone double check what has been done or check with any engine before closing and locking the cowling.




Synopsis: BE9L instructor pilot reported torque fluctuations and low oil pressure in right engine; so the engine was shut down and a precautionary landing accomplished. On the ground it was determined the oil dipstick was not locked properly before flight.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSLP.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Upon entering the ramp (Taxiway Delta to Foxtrot) both of us noted that the Foxtrot taxiway centerline on the ramp and perpendicular to the gate centerline seemed too close to the southern edge of the taxiway on the ramp next to the grass. Recommend a site survey be conducted for heavy aircraft arriving/departing San Salvador to better understand how close taxiing on the Taxiway Foxtrot centerline will place the main wheels to the grass and edge of the taxiway. It appeared that taxiing on the Taxiway Foxtrot centerline would put our wheels very close to the grass or in it. We elected to deviate from centerline to keep us away from the edge of the grass and edge of the ramp taxiway.  It is possible that taxiway Foxtrot was measured and painted for B757 and smaller aircraft.  Conduct a site survey of MSLP to determine if the taxiway centerline is measured and painted for larger aircraft like Aircraft X. Publish guidance on the -7 pages describing the need for deviating from taxiway centerline on Taxiway F if it is found to be of sufficient distance from the edge.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported the taxi line at MSLP airport is too near the grass area for a large aircraft; creating a safety concern.
Date: 201910
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X contacted flight dispatch via Satcom requesting phone patch with Maintenance Control referencing dual pack failure. Aircraft X patched with Maintenance Control. At that time; on the fusion aircraft situational display; flight had descended to FL100 per the procedure in the AFM. Captain requested that Flight Operations Duty Manager and Fleet Technical Director come on the patch for additional guidance.  Per the AFM; with dual pack failure; step 4 or 5 indicated for flight to land at the nearest suitable airport. Initially; this was discussed and Captain said he did not want to go to ZZZZ. Best airport at the time was ZZZZ1. Weather; NOTAMs; airport facilities were good. Meanwhile for the next 30 minutes crew was busy still running multiple checklist with various EICAS messages popping up while talking to the fleet technical director.  ZZZ airport was brought for consideration as a diversionary alternate. It was decided between the Captain and crew and Flight Dispatch that Aircraft X would proceed to ZZZ for diversion alternate. The airport was approximately 1 hour 20 minutes away. As the flight proceeded south; the cabin and flight deck begin warming up. The Captain; crew and technical director were discussing how to cool both areas. At that time the crew started getting multiple EICAS failure messages pop up. It was then decided that ZZZ was not going to work and the new diversion station was changed to ZZZ1. Fleet technical director; Maintenance Control; and Flight Dispatch remained on the line with flight crew until they landed uneventfully in ZZZ1.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported SATCOM call from a flight crew with a dual pack failure that resulted in a diversion.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C MDW
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is a general report (no specific incident) related to RNAV (GPS) Z Runway 22L MDW. I flew this approach in visual conditions but as if we were IMC to see what this is going to look like when I have to do it in IMC. I apologize in advance for yelling with capital letters! HOW IS THIS APPROACH LEGAL?Given all the changes in our procedures over the last several years to improve the safety of our operation (specifically; but not limited to stabilized approaches); how did this approach pass muster for Company operations? The MDA is 1;020 MSL. DA would then be 1;070 MSL. That is 464 AGL and 11 degrees offset from the runway for making a decision to land. I flew this day VMC and was [not] wings level [until] below 300 AGL. Also; [at] the decision point; I do not believe the VASI was visible. If it was; I did not notice it until lined up with the runway.Given our stabilized approach criteria; this is not a safe approach and is setting us up for failure. Picture this: 737-800; maximum performance landing; weather at minimums; wings [not] level [until] below 300 FT at the end of a long day. Can you say tail strike? or worse? Again; from a safety system perspective; this approach is dangerous and is setting us up for failure. I challenge each of you to fly this approach and with a straight face explain how it is safe. Personally; yes I can fly it and make a decision as to whether I can land safely or not. Professionally; there is too much inherent risk in this approach and I will not fly it near minimums. This is a safety systems failure. Money over safety is very clear in the approval of this approach procedure.[We should] revisit this approach procedure [and require] higher minimums and/or less offset from centerline.




Synopsis: A B737NG Captain expressed concern that the RNAV (GPS) Z Runway 22L approach compromises the flight crew's ability to conduct a safe; stabilized approach; especially under adverse conditions.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20 Undifferentiated
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; 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: Aircraft

Narrative: Our flight was uneventful until touchdown. The weather was good and the aircraft touched down normally on centerline; with zero drift and in the touchdown zone. When brakes were evenly applied the aircraft slewed immediately and drastically to the left. I countered with full right brake and rudder and initiated nose wheel steering. The left main and nose wheel departed the runway. As the aircraft slowed the nose wheel steering became more effective which allowed me to steer the aircraft back on the runway. Postflight inspection revealed minor damage.


Second narrative: With the aircraft heading towards the safety area on the left side of the runway; I assisted the pilot flying by ensuring full right brake and rudder had been applied.


Synopsis: The flight crew of a DA-20 lost control of the aircraft upon brake activation following landing. They were only able to regain control after the aircraft's nose and left main gears exited the paved runway surface. Minor damage was noted by the reporters.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Parked
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arrival at the gate in ZZZ I received a call from one of our aft flight attendants during deplaning. The FA's (Flight Attendants) in the rear of the aircraft reported feeling ill due to a strong chemical odor which commenced shortly after the top of descent and gradually grew stronger until touchdown. They reported that the smell was sweet; very; acute; abrasive to the throat and nauseating. They believed that the smell was nearly strong enough to justify utilizing O2 bottles but decided not to.As soon as I was made aware of the problem the aircraft was written up and per the request of both affected FA's. Paramedics were called. Multiple attempts by multiple crew members to medical assist company yielded very unsatisfactory results. Long hold times were followed by little if any helpful advice that I have been made aware of.Get rid of medical assist company. From what I have gathered from the affected flight attendants medical assist company services added more stress and anxiety to an already stressful situation.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a fume event during descent until gate arrival. The fumes were reported by the aft flight attendants who experienced physiological symptoms.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: M-20 F Executive 21
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed gear-up. During my approach; I completed other checklist items including flap setting; trim; fuel pump; etc.; but failed to lower the landing gear. During the approach phase; I think that there were a few factors that contributed to my failure to lower the landing gear; as well as notice on final approach that the landing that the gear was not extended. I had been flying [for 7 hours]; and had a fairly busy afternoon and evening - by the time I had begun my approach into [the airport]; I was fairly fatigued. Additionally; I do not recall hearing the landing gear warning sound; which might have contributed to a subconscious false security that I must have already lowered the gear. My approach was somewhat abnormal as well; due to the fact that I had a late descent to the airport; and again; subconsciously I might have made the assumption that I had lowered the gear since the flaps were already extended in an effort to slow the aircraft. I believe my level of fatigue was the primary cause for my lack of awareness during the approach and landing. I cannot explain why I did not complete my Landing Checklist; other than the sum of all of the aforementioned factors helped instill a certain complacency. In all; the mishap could have easily been avoided through several measures: Better awareness of my fatigue level; and bringing back the basics of the IMSAFE checklist [and] ensuring a well-rested state before flying. Better approach and landing CRM; with thorough checklist usage throughout [and] improved proactive cockpit scan to include lack of a landing gear indication. Recognizing and avoiding abnormal flight situations that increase safety risk. Consistently practice [in my] safe landing gear habits; including confirming that gear is extended more than once.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Mooney M20 landed with the gear up but does not recall hearing the gear warning horn. The aircraft was not substantial damaged.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Pitts S-2 All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While receiving dual instruction I bounced the landing of my Pitts S-2B. The instructor declared; 'I have the airplane;' took control of the aircraft and attempted to salvage the landing. This resulted in a ground loop which damaged the landing gear. There were no injuries or property damage. After reviewing CFR 14; Part 830; Sub-part B; 830.5 we determined that an initial report to the NTSB was not required as there was no property damage or injuries. It took nearly two hours to locate personnel and equipment necessary to move the aircraft. During this time the aircraft was just off the runway and presented a potential hazard to landing and departing traffic. The Local Airport Management seemed to be unclear about their reporting requirements and debated about moving the aircraft. They chose to post an individual with a hand-held aviation radio to watch for traffic and provide advisories. Perhaps a nation-wide 800 number and posted placards for reporting potential hazards could have ensured immediate dissemination of the potential risk.




Synopsis: A Pitts pilot bounced the aircraft during landing and the instructor was unable to salvage the landing; resulting in a ground loop and damage to the landing gear.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: The O2 masks on the 737-800s I was on this week have a data plate that says approved to 40;000 ft. The 737 is approved to 41;000 ft. Is there something about the mask data plate that is incorrect?




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported an oxygen mask on his aircraft was placarded certified to 40;000 ft while the aircraft is certified to 41;000 ft.
Date: 202108
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were loaded up on a brand new Max headed to ZZZ1. Shortly after initial speed up but before rotation we hear this loud pop sound from the #1 engine area. Then the plane fish tailed slightly to the left; we then hear braking and the reverse engine thrust and come to fast stop and an aborted take off. Sat on runway for about 10 seconds in silence. Aircraft stopped very quickly; no injuries reported from cabin that we could hear from passengers. Unknown damage at full stop.Parked on runway we then within a minute hear pilot on PA say to stay seated with seat belt on; as we will return to the gate to get it all checked. Pilot then calls flight attendant's (FA) on phone to alert us that everything is okay that we had a malfunction and we aborted takeoff.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant on a B737 MAX 8 reported the flight crew performed a rejected take off after hearing a loud pop from the number 1 engine.
Date: 201906
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending through 37;000 feet; we had the autopilot and yaw damp disengage. Yesterday; we also had the very same issue occur on this aircraft. In both instances we were cruising at 43;000 feet; with the exception today. We were in the descent; just out of 37;000 feet from 43;000 feet. In both instances; we were outside the GPS testing range; with no GPS abnormalities. About two hours into both of the flights; the autopilot and yaw damp disengage; and then; about two to three minutes later; we have an automatic switch to AHRS 2. After running the appropriate checklists; we elected to divert. No further issues occurred.




Synopsis: Twin jet pilot reported GPS abnormalities two days in a row.