elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On descent for landing right engine began losing oil quantity. Pressure and temp were normal. Quantity eventually went to zero. We were unsure at this point if we had a quantity indication failure or actual loss of oil. I planned a 28 flap landing just in case we would have to shut down the right engine. In the turn to base leg we began to lose oil pressure. Ran the appropriate check list and shut down the right engine. Advised ATC and completed a single engine landing. Cleared the runway after landing and made the appropriate PA while CFR checked us. After the checks were complete; we taxied to the gate.




Synopsis: MD83 pilot reported losing engine oil quantity during descent. The quantity eventually went to zero; but the temperature and pressure remained good until turning base. The pressure then began to drop; the engine was shut down; and a single engine landing ensued.
Date: 201502
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; FBO Personnel
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An aircraft purchased by the FBO where I instruct was signed off as airworthy by the Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) mechanic/repair station from which it was purchased. This was after an extensive repair and rebuild of the aircraft following a landing accident. The aircraft was represented as airworthy in the aircraft airframe logbook after the repair/rebuild. After the first flight in the aircraft (by another pilot) it was found that the trim control was operating backwards from what is normally expected in this aircraft. There were also several discrepancies found regarding the elevator hinges and horizontal stabilizer that were identified. These discrepancies were remedied by the original A&P mechanic after being notified of them.After those repairs I subsequently flew this aircraft on over 30 separate occasions over a span of 8 months while believing that it was in airworthy condition based on the airframe logbook entries; the repairs made to the original squawks on the trim; elevator hinges; and horizontal stabilizer; and my own preflight inspections. The aircraft was later sent to a different maintenance facility for compliance with a recently issued Airworthiness Directive (AD) as well as having a 100 hour/annual inspection performed. During the course of this annual inspection there were numerous discrepancies found with the aircraft and the previous airframe logbook entries. It was subsequently determined by the maintenance facility that at least part of the aircraft repair/rebuild had not been accomplished properly; had not been documented properly; and was not airworthy. In addition; there were several ADs that were found not having been complied with.I unknowingly had flown; instructed; and allowed students to fly solo in this aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition. The un-airworthy repair was not visible or discernible during normal preflight inspections and could only be determined by disassembly of the aircraft by a knowledgeable mechanic. I believed at the time that the aircraft had been repaired properly and the airframe logbook entries represented the airworthy state of the aircraft and compliance with ADs.




Synopsis: It was determined by a maintenance facility that at least part of the aircraft repair/rebuild had not been accomplished properly; had not been documented properly; and was not airworthy.
Date: 202109
Location: CID.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: There is ongoing Taxiway construction on A adjacent to the Terminal. The NOTAMs mention closure of the Taxiway but there is no mention of the work on [the] airline ramp. There needs to be a NOTAM to reflect the ramp construction. The construction goes far beyond Taxiway A and there needs to be a NOTAM that if you are parking gates 1; 2; 3; 4; 6; that they should only be accessed via A10; A then A9. I feel this is a grave hazard to our operation.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported the NOTAMs for CID airport do not describe the extent of the construction in progress.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cockpit Furnishing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: ATIS sheet fell through the slot forward of the center pedestal and the blank off plate. We had Maintenance come out to remove it. We discovered 20 other ATIS sheets mixed into the wiring. The aircraft is only six months old. Severe potential fire hazard!




Synopsis: 737MAX8 Captain reported a slot in the cockpit center pedestal allowed flight documents to slip through and collect on aircraft wire bundles.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Staffing; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: This morning I had XX aircraft on my desk and all of a sudden the ATC strips were not filing.  I had to then manually file all my flight strips which is a lengthy process with so many aircraft and immediately I was task saturated.  I was able to get a few flights to depart but after I had to call in a ZZZ1 flight; I lost the ability to flight follow since that process takes a longer time than manually filing strips over the internet.The issue we have is everyone was affected and I couldn't ask another Dispatcher for help since they were also having issues and didn't have the free time to look after additional flights along with thunderstorms all over.Having IT issues is nothing new and we need to have faster resolutions and our workload is so high we can easily get over our head in an instant. We need more dispatchers for this shift and we have many dispatchers on furlough that could come in and work and it would help to have someone from IT inside for help.The big issue is our company cares more for the bottom line than for the safety of the thousands of passengers we fly.  I'm very fearful we will have some major incident soon.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported being overwhelmed with aircraft due to staffing shortages and computer system difficulties.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared by the ground controller to Taxi to C6 via Taxiway Bravo (eastbound). As we approached Taxiway Papa; there was [another air carrier] who was crossing Runway 25 right; then turned eastbound on Bravo in front of us. We were forced to come to a complete stop on Taxiway Bravo to ensure a good level of clearance between aircraft. The ground controller noticed that we had stopped and thanked us for doing so.I have seen the same thing occur several times in recent months. In all cases; the 'mixup' occurs with aircraft taxiing eastbound on Bravo; and conflicts with aircraft crossing Runway 25 Right at either Tango or Papa.In one case; we were forced to stop on Runway 25R/Papa Taxiway to allow another aircraft that was taxiing east on Bravo who continued to taxi in front of us; thereby blocking 25R for a short period.I am only guessing; but it seems that there may be a communication breakdown between the Tower Controller; and the South side Ground controller.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported ground conflicts at LAX with aircraft crossing Runway 25 Right at either Tango or Papa.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: X07.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: CTAF X07
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was at the midfield left downwind; Runway 24 at X07; at pattern altitude. Another aircraft; also involved in flight training; was on left base for the same runway. Student was flying our aircraft. An aircraft which most closely resembled a Long EZ directly overflew the field at about pattern altitude from north to south; making no calls on the radio. The Long EZ's path was a direct intercept with mine. I only noticed the aircraft when it was at our 10 o'clock; 200 FT away; slightly lower in altitude. Intercept angle was about 100 degrees. To avoid collision; I took controls and pitched up and banked slightly left. The reasoning behind the left bank was that if the Long EZ were to pitch up and I had turned right; I would be at further risk of collision. Looking back at the aircraft; I saw no indication that he had taken evasive action. He continued to the south at the same altitude; without any comments on the radio. As an Instructor; care is taken so the student doesn't deviate from assigned paths. This may have reduced my situational awareness enough that my scan was compromised. The knowledge that pilots should not be flying in such a manner gave us a false sense of security about our position - usually it is expected for aircraft to enter from outside the pattern; so efforts toward collision avoidance are more often focused away from the runway. Judging by the path and lack of action of the other aircraft; I think his path was deliberate. He may have been too focused on matters inside the aircraft to notice traffic; or he simply may not have cared. A canopy like that of the Long EZ and similar designs has no visual obstructions forward of the pilot's headrest.




Synopsis: An Instructor pilot took control of the aircraft to take evasive action from a Long EZ aircraft which crossed through the Lake Wales airport traffic pattern at pattern altitude.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
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: FMS/FMC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure we were issued an RNAV departure from Runway 16 left.  To the best of my recollection we were climbing via the SID and contacted departure control.  Shortly after contacting departure control we were cleared to 'climb and maintain' an altitude above the climb via profile restrictions.  I was the PF (pilot flying) and followed the SOP in selecting the new altitude.  Since it was a 'climb and maintain' clearance I confirmed with the First Officer (FO) and he agreed that we did not have to comply with the climb via altitude restrictions.I do not recall being advised that we had missed any of the altitude restrictions on the SID. Unfortunately the intervening period between the event and the many other flights leaves me at a loss to recall in more detail the specific particulars of this alleged incident.  Because of the relative newness of the Climb Via procedures I am very cautious to confirm that the FMS indicates CLB and that the restrictions are still present on the ND and the MCDU.  This is part of our Airbus CAMI (Confirm; Monitor; Activate; Intervene) procedures.  CAMI procedures were implemented in order to ameliorate the profound deficiencies of the Airbus vertical navigation system.  If such an event occurred and I were advised of its occurrence at the time I probably would have been able to make such determination to the cause. We are required; by company procedures; to use Level 4 automation as much as possible.  Many times the automation is wholly inadequate (specifically the vertical navigation component) and safety in compromised because the automation does not perform as expected.  At this point the automation becomes a distraction and does not enhance safety but actually compromises it.




Synopsis: An A319 Captain was apparently notified after the fact that an RNAV 'Climb Via' constraint was not met. He describes his uncertainty about the event as well as his lack of confidence in the Airbus vertical navigation system.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compressor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Prior to descending from FL350 the vibration indicator on the right engine was fluctuating from 2.0 - 5.0 on the LPT. All other engine indicators were normal.  We were given a descent from FL350 and upon the power coming back to idle there was a loud bang and aircraft shudder.  I saw the VIB on the Right Eng was at 5.0 but all other instruments were indicating normal.  On a subsequent descent from FL220 we observed a second bang from the engine and began to suspect a compressor stall.  I was the PF; the Captain; the PM; began running the compressor stall checklist from the QRH and followed all of the procedures.  We elected to conduct a 20 flap landing; leaving the right engine at idle IAW QRH procedures.  Once the appropriate checklists were run aircraft control was transferred to the Captain  for an uneventful landing.  After waiting three minutes after landing; and observing the LPT VIB still at 5.0;  we shutdown the right engine and continued to taxi to park.


Second narrative: On the descent into ZZZZ from 35;000; FO retarded the throttles and we experienced a loud bang that got both of our attention. Leveled off at 22;000 then descended to 16;000. Upon retarding the throttles again; we experienced the same type of loud bang. We determined that it was a compressor stall on the right engine. Followed the QRH procedures and decided to leave the engine at idle until landing. LPT indicator was fluctuating the entire descent into ZZZZ up to 5.0. Due to the nature of the situation; I requested priority handling going into ZZZZ. We left the throttle at idle and landed flaps 20 with no incident. Thoroughly debriefed the several mechanics at ZZZZ and spoke to [Maintenance Operations] and flight control via satcom also. Captain made the landing.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported a suspected compressor stall in right engine during descent from cruise.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Tower, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on final approach for Runway 35 at PHL conducting a Flaps 22 visual approach and landing. Conditions were VMC and we were configured for landing by 1;000 ft. and stable by 800 ft. in accordance with policies requiring the aircraft to be configured by 1;000 ft. and stable by 500 ft. in visual conditions. We were notified by the Tower that an aircraft was landing on the intersecting 27R runway and that we were cleared to land on Runway 35. During my landing flare as we crossed the [Runway] 27R intersection we encountered wake turbulence from the previous arrival. The left wing suddenly dipped and I felt the aircraft enter only what I can describe as an enhanced ground effect where the aircraft was not sinking at the rate that it was prior to crossing the intersection. Due to this condition I felt as though the aircraft would not be able to touchdown in the Runway 35 TDZ and I called for and executed a go around. We completed the go around maneuver successfully and were vectored back around for a visual approach to RWY 27R where we landed uneventfully and taxied to the gate.The FO (First Officer) and I felt the wing dip and the aircraft began floating and my sink rate had ceased.I believe the cause of the wing dip and enhanced ground effect was due to wake turbulence from the previous RWY 27R arrival. This all happened as soon as we were over the [Runways] 27R/35 intersection in the landing flare. The aircraft was sinking normally during my flare prior to crossing the intersection.Feeling as though a touchdown in the touchdown zone would no longer be possible I elected to go around.Prior to this event I have landed on [Runway] 35 many times after an arrival on the intersecting runway and felt the wake of the landing aircraft. In this instance the effects of what we encountered far exceeded what I have ever felt before. Perhaps more information could be distributed to the flight crews regarding any other similar events if there is a pattern of this occurring.

Callback: Reporter stated more ATC awareness is needed in the area of possible wake from intersecting runways.



Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported executing a go-around after encountering wake turbulence from previous arrival on an intersecting runway.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CZUL.ARTCC, PQ
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center CZUL
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were in cruise at FL350 approaching BAREE; when I noticed that the left engine oil quantity was zero. I then checked all the other engine indications and discovered that the left engine oil pressure; while in limits; was about 100 PSI lower and the oil temp was significantly higher than the right engine. I contacted Maintenance Control and Dispatch on SATCOM. After reviewing all the indications and previous write-ups we concluded that the scavenge pump on the number 1 engine had failed; and that it could cause us to lose the engine enroute. He recommended we not cross the Atlantic like this. Dispatch recommended we divert and we concurred. We dumped fuel down to below maximum landing weight and landed uneventfully. If this situation could have actually led to an in-flight shutdown; or worse; maybe there should be some EICAS indication associated with it. We had no indications other than the fact that I noticed the oil quantity was indicating zero.


Second narrative: During the descent; we observed the number 1 engine oil quantity indication slowly return to normal.


Synopsis: A eastbound transatlantic air carrier flight diverted to a stateside airport after experiencing indications of low oil quantity and pressure and high oil temperature in the left engine.