elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B787-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Logbook(s)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Logbook Entry; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When we arrived at the aircraft; there were three MEL items. Two were in reference to recent maintenance work on the aircraft. One of those required an inflight APU restart; and the second was in reference to work done on both engines that required a flight before the aircraft could be returned to ETOPS status. The specific MEL was 72-XXX; ETOPS In-flight Verification Required. Enroute to the destination; we performed the APU restart; and of course monitored the engines. The Captain was getting a line check; with the Check Airman sitting in the jumpseat. After the successful APU restart; the Check Airman volunteered to do the logbook entries. Although the engine MEL didn't give specific items that we were supposed to check; I did not realize that no logbook entry was made to this MEL. MEL 72-XXX is very generic and; in our case; was unclear [with] what specific checks needed to be accomplished. Also; whether causal or not; there were several distractors on this trip. The Captain was getting a line check; there was an unrelated maintenance problem that caused a two-hour departure delay; and our sequence was being broken up after our arrival at ZZZ.For MEL 72-XXX; in the DP (Departure Procedures) section; the Dispatcher is supposed to 'discuss the ETOPS verification requirements with the Captain.' I'm not aware that this discussion took place; which left us unsure exactly what we were supposed to do to clear this MEL. There should be a line in the 'O' section that says something like; 'The Captain will discuss with the Dispatcher what specific checks need to be accomplished.'




Synopsis: B787 First Officer reported confusion regarding MEL procedures relating to aircraft ETOPS verification and making the required logbook entries.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out of ZZZ at 8;000 ft. my right engine failed. We [advised ATC] and turned downwind to return to Runway XX. We accomplished ECAM actions (A321) and landed uneventfully 7 minutes later. We stopped on Runway XY for inspection and returned to the gate to debrief maintenance.


Second narrative: After a normal takeoff and climbing through 8;500 ft. we heard a very loud bang and immediately the aircraft slowed down and some yaw feedback. There was initially minor vibration and shaking but that subsided. We immediately identified that the number 2 engine had rolled back and it was not producing any power. I believe we both verbally agreed we had a compressor stall. A few seconds after the loud bang we received an ECAM message: ENG 2 EGT OVERLIMIT. We ran that ECAM procedure. We secured the number 2 engine. The Captain was flying the aircraft and talking to ATC and flight attendants. It was extremely busy; he had already [advised ATC] and was turning downwind towards Runway XX. We were in VMC conditions turning base towards the airport; I was still trying to load an approach in the FMGC as the Captain is asking me for landing configuration (ex. Flaps; Gear). At that point the Captain briefed that the safest course was to disregard automation and just to focus on flying the aircraft VMC; We agreed on our runway alignment; safe configuration; and he flew that aircraft safely to the runway. We landed and turned off on Runway XY where we had fire rescue inspect the aircraft and then proceeded to the gate for a normal deplaning.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported that an engine failure during climb resulted in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: MD-90 Series (DC-9-90) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My Manual Controller pointed out a Citation XL to the BAE Sector descending to FL330 as per the SOP for DTW traffic. The BAE Controller accepted the point-out reference MD90. My Manual Controller advised me of the traffic which I observed. I knew I wanted to start Citation XL down to FL350 so that we could later give him the standard crossing restriction of FL330. This was a simple case of seeing the traffic at FL330 and issuing the assigned altitude FL330; not FL350 like I wanted to. When I saw Citation XL descending through what I thought the assigned altitude of FL350 I had the aircraft maintain his present altitude (FL347). It was too late the aircraft was already through FL340 so I climbed him back up to FL340. When I later listened to the pilot read back; I realized what I had done. Occasionally a controller will do what I did; observe the aircraft's altitude that they are supposed to miss and still issue the very same altitude.


Second narrative: A Citation XL was on route to DTW at FL390 the HOR Sector is required to descend DTW arrivals to FL330. I was working the D-Side and pointed the Citation XL out to Sector 60 who showed me the traffic (a MD90) I than told my RADAR Controller about the traffic and moved on to work on other things The RADAR Controller thought he cleared the Citation XL to FL350 but noticed him descend through the altitude and tried to stop his descent but was not able to stop the aircraft in time. I feel this is one of those human errors you look at the aircraft at FL330; think you are saying FL350 but FL330 is issued.


Synopsis: ZAU Controller described a conflict vent when thinking one altitude but issuing a conflicting altitude assignment.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compressor Stator/Vane
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain is pilot flying. At approximately 70 knots received ECAM message ENG 1 Compressor Vane.  ECAM directed action was to bring thrust levers to idle and therefore reject the takeoff. Rejected takeoff without incident (Autobrakes worked well); exited runway; and taxied back to the gate. No emergency was declared. Called maintenance and entered appropriate writeup in the maintenance logbook. We switched aircraft before continuing our trip. FYI...previous writeup in the maintenance logbook from earlier that morning indicated exact same ECAM message on takeoff and associated reject. Unsure of cause and associated maintenance action(s).




Synopsis: A319 Captain reports receiving an ECAM message 'ENG 1 Compressor Vane' at 70 knots and rejects the takeoff. A previous write up for the same anomaly had occurred earlier in the day and the aircraft is taken out of service.
Date: 202108
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As weight left the wheels; my primary and secondary nav; heading; DG; compass failed. Along with the failures I had a PWS (Predictive Wind Shear) fail message and a TCAS fail message. My flight director failed as well. As we continued to climb; FO flying the aircraft; I began to troubleshoot the problems. I ran 2 checklist as they did not correct the issues.  I opted to return to ZZZ. At that time I requested priority handling. I continued to communicate with company; FAs and passengers. The FO flew the ILS to [Runway] XXR. We landed and taxi to the terminal.




Synopsis: B737 NG Captain reported loss of navigation systems and instruments on lift off. Captain elected to return to the departure airport.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had just taken off Runway XX at ZZZ and was climbing up to our left crosswind altitude when I heard an airplane on the 45 entry for left downwind Runway XX and an airplane crossing over mid field for a teardrop entry into left downwind Runway XX. We made our radio call and turned left crosswind and had the first 45 entry traffic insight which was no factor. We then heard the second airplane that was doing a teardrop entry say they were gonna hold off on their entry because of traffic; so I turned my attention back to my student who had climbed up to 1;850 [feet] instead of 1;700 [feet] and told him we needed to get back to 1;700 [feet]. We made a radio call for left downwind Runway XX and made our turn while still scanning for the traffic that said they were not going to do their teardrop entry into the left downwind; we didn't see any traffic partly because the sun was in our eyes; so I glanced down at my iPad and saw the traffic was directly 200 feet below us. At that exact moment; they came on the radio and said they were directly below us; I guess they saw us on their ADS-B as well and said they were breaking out of the pattern to the right. At that point; I had gotten a visual on their aircraft and as they made a right hand turn away from us they became no factor. With all the factors of a busy cockpit; training flight; several planes in the traffic pattern; the sun directly in our eyes when we turned crosswind we probably should have extended out on our climb and had a visual on the teardrop entry traffic; even if they said they were not going to execute their entry; before we turned left crosswind and put the sun right in our face.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported an NMAC while maneuvering in the traffic pattern of a non-towered airport.
Date: 202102
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Air Carrier requested [taxi clearance] to deice [pad] after push to get the [Release] for this flight. After they deiced; Ramp Tower got a call concerning HAZMAT packing. The flight is now returning to the gate to deal with the HAZMAT.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported aircraft on a ground gate return to correct a Hazmat loading irregularity.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was holding short of [the] runway. I thought that the Tower had instructed me to taxi to [the parallel runway] for take off. I began to move the aircraft. At the same time I looked to the left and observed another aircraft on a half mile final. I applied brakes and at the same time the Tower radioed 'stop; stop'. By that time the nose of the aircraft had passed the limit line and I had committed a runway incursion. Since I was in a tail dragger I was able to lock my right wheel; spin around; and return to the correct side of the limit line. The landing aircraft did a go-around.There were two primary factors that caused the runway incursion. First; I should have waited for a response from the Tower before moving the aircraft. That would have given the Tower time to tell me to remain where I was. Secondly; I should have visually cleared the final approach area before movement. I would have seen the aircraft and not gone past the limit line. Another factor was that; since I was in an open cockpit aircraft there was wind noise from the prop wash as well as engine noise that resulted in me mishearing the instructions from the Tower.In the future I plan to 1. before moving the aircraft; give the Tower time to correct any misinterpretation of instructions; 2. check for traffic before moving the aircraft; and 3. allowing a few more feet distance from the limit line as an added safety margin to prevent movement past the limit line.




Synopsis: Pilot of an open cockpit biplane reported a misunderstood communication from the Tower resulted in a runway incursion and a go-around from the aircraft on approach.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Rangemaster (Navion)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The airplane experienced a complete loss of engine power shortly after the initial power reduction during the descent. My attempt to restore engine power was not successful and an off-airport landing was initiated. The airplane was airborne and running normally for approximately 25 minutes prior to the loss of engine power. I was the sole occupant and was not injured. The airplane did sustain damage to the outer portion of the right wing leading edge when it hit a stop sign. I'm not aware of the monetary amount of the damage at this time. I do not know the reason for the power loss at this time. There was no contamination present in the fuel either pre or post flight and the airplane came to rest with approximately 20 gallons of useable fuel in the main tanks. All aspects of the airplane preflight inspection and engine run up were normal.




Synopsis: Navion pilot reported an engine failure and subsequent off field landing.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were at approximately 11;000 feet descending on the arrival when we got a L ENG OIL PRESS Master Warning Message. ITT began flashing red at what I believe was 908 degrees. Engine oil pressure was also red and below 25 PSI; and we got the accompanying 'Engine Oil' verbal warning. The First Officer was flying the plane so I gave him the radios and I began the QRH Immediate Action items. At the time of the event we were already in icing conditions and light turbulence. The First Officer immediately told ATC we need lower to get out of the weather. ATC gave us a descent to 4;000 feet and at that time we began experiencing constant moderate turbulence. Meanwhile I was verifying; per the QRH; that we did in fact have the master warning message and an oil pressure below 25 PSI and I began the intentional shutdown of our left engine. It was challenging dealing with the emergency in the moderate turbulence; but I completed the QRH procedure while the First Officer got us below the weather and vectors towards [the] airport. We discussed our plan and decided to continue and land at [destination]. We had discussed the weather; so we already knew it was good weather at the field and we also knew that the Tower was open. We requested to have the firetrucks meet us at the runway as a precaution. At that time; I called the Flight Attendant and briefed him on the situation. We continued on and the First Officer did a great job landing uneventfully; with one engine and flaps 20.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported landing safely after shutting down the left engine following a low oil pressure message and high ITT.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was cleared by Houston Center Direct to OXUKE intersection; Cross the IAF at 3000 ft MSL; and cleared GPS-A approach to T30; report established. OXUKE is the IAF for GPS-A on the DME arc. I crossed OXUKE at about 3500 ft MSL and was established on the DME arc for the approach. Following the published altitude on the chart; I then descended to 2500 ft MSL. About 4 miles prior to the FEELS intersection; Houston Center called on the radio and asked if I was established on the approach. I informed them that yes I was established and was now in VMC conditions and would be able to cancel my IFR flight plan. Houston then proceeded to inform me that I was below 3000 ft and not to make that mistake again; canceled my flight plan and authorized me to change frequency. ATC cautionary statement did not match the published information on the chart.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot reported flying the T30 Airport GPS-A 10 DME arc between OXUKE and FEELS at 2500 feet as charted. ATC instructed that his aircraft should have remained at 3000 feet.