elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Denver; is a high altitude airport with very long runways and a potential of wind conditions associated with the mountains and the front range.  I noticed that all the runways in Denver only have wind socks at the end of the runways; when they should have at least 1 or 2 more down the runway as the winds in high altitude airports change during frontal systems.  On Runway 25 the wind sock is between the runway and the taxiway and is in a valley almost below the taxiway and the runway.  We need more immediate visual clues on takeoff roll which is usually a lot longer at high altitude airports.




Synopsis: Pilot believes that DEN airport has insufficient wind socks when the altitude and length of the runways is considered.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute we had a pressurization problem; ran the checklist. We couldn't get control of the cabin so we donned the masks and requested priority handling and returned to ZZZ.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported a problem controlling cabin pressure; which resulted in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: RPM/N1/N2/Etc Indication
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We pushed off the gate approximately 10 minutes late due to the time it took to determine the cause of a hot mic and writing up an MEL for the observer's seat audio panel. After being cleared for takeoff I set the takeoff power to approximately 87.8 percent. As we accelerated; I transitioned to looking outside. At approximately 100 knots; the First Officer pointed out that the number one engine N1 gauge had rolled back to 62.3 percent. Not knowing the immediate cause of the rollback; I rejected the takeoff. We informed ATC of the reject; and exited the runway. I taxied the aircraft to the East Ramp. At that point I spoke with the F/As; and made a PA to the Passengers. We ran the procedure for brake cooling requirements for a reject at 100 knots. The required cooling time was 52 minutes at the gate. I coordinated with Operations; and taxied to Gate X. Upon completion of the Parking Checklist with both engines shut down; the number one N1 gauge was still indicating 62.3 percent on the analogue and digital portions of the gauge. I contacted Dispatch and spoke with Maintenance Control and the Chief Pilot on Duty. A logbook entry was made. The aircraft was taken offline.With a historical perspective; I believe that the N1 rollback was a faulty gauge indication; and not an engine problem. It is difficult to say if I could have done something different. At the moment I felt I did not have the time to methodically analyze the situation; and felt the safest course of action was to stop the aircraft due to a potential engine rollback. I do regret my delay in informing the Passengers of the situation. I neglected to immediately inform them to remain seated and let them know that everything was ok. Procedurally we had a moment of confusion finding the RTO Checklist in the QRH.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that on takeoff engine #1 N1 RPM had rolled back to 62.3% so the Captain rejected the takeoff. At the gate with engines shutdown; engine #1 N1 continued to indicate 62.3%.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Two similar sounding callsigns on frequency: Flight ABCD and Flight AECD.  Both aircraft were being vectored to the final approach course into SNA airport.  Flight ABCD was in front of Flight AECD.  I issued and altitude of 4;300 feet to Flight ABCD and Flight AECD responded at the same exact time.  All I heard was Flight ABCD reading it back.  I then observed Flight AECD descending below the 5;200 foot Minimum Vectoring Altitude and issued a low altitude alert; stop climb; and climb back up.   Need to be more observant of similar sounding call signs and should have issued the phraseology to warn both aircraft.  Lesson learned.




Synopsis: SCT TRACON Controller reported they did not detect the wrong aircraft read a descent clearance back to them due to similar sounding call signs. The aircraft descended below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Aircraft component: Pressurization Outflow Valve
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 1:18 after takeoff; northbound on L453 in WATRS area; FL380; we had an EICAS Warning 'Cabin Altitude.'  Cabin Altitude was about 11;000 feet and stable; cabin rate of climb/descent was zero.  Followed guidance in QRH; attempted to bring down cabin altitude with alternate (Auto 2) mode and Manual mode with no results. Made 'Pan Pan Pan' call on guard while turning off the track for descent to 10;000 feet.  Cabin altitude began to descend as soon as we initiated aircraft descent and within 2-3 minutes was below 10;000 feet.  Cabin continued to descend normally during our descent.  We leveled off at 10;000 feet and continued southbound to clear the WATRS area and return to the departure airport.  We did not declare an emergency and passenger oxygen was not deployed.  The First Officer coordinated with ATC on HF and we had a lot of help from company aircraft in the vicinity with ATC radio relay and ACARS relay to keep Dispatch informed.  We continued to normal approach and  precautionary landing at our departure airport; arriving with about 10;700 pounds of fuel. Mechanics who repaired the aircraft during the night stated that there was a problem with the outflow valve and that it wasn't modulating/closing normally; and wouldn't fully close in any control mode.




Synopsis: A B757 outflow valve failed to regulate pressurization at FL380 so after the EICAS alerted CABIN ALTITUDE the crew declared an emergency; descended to 10;000 feet; and returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FAI.Airport, AK
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During Preflight flow was unable to select terrain display.  Contacted Maintenance Control and was instructed to check reset several circut breakers.  No success.  Wrote up discrepancy in logbook.  Local Maintenance was notified and arrived.  Was informed by ground crew chief that this had been a recurring problem on other aircraft type Flights.  Was informed of note regarding this situation.  The NOTAM FAI 04/431 indicated there was problems due to GPS interference testing from 30April 21 to 15May21.  It was now [after those dates].  Maintenance was unable to make repairs.  Dispatch requested we push off gate with revenue.  I declined.  Off loaded passengers.  Was asked if I was willing to taxi aircraft without passengers to see if problem would clear.  I agreed in accordance with FOM.  Asked dispatch what flight number would be.  He indicated it would be XXXX.  We pushed off gate and taxied south and continued northbound on runway.  Maintenance was observing operation.  We tried many attempts to engage terrain display without success.  Parked airplane on hardstand.  Secured Airplane. Was not sure if failure of terrain display was system failure or continued interference testing.  If testing was indeed taking place after the NOTAM effective dates; they should be updated.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a system malfunction during pre-flight that may have been caused by GPS interference testing.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, 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
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff; I raised the gear lever; but the gear did not retract. We had a LGCIU 1 & 2 Failure on the ECAM. We followed our ECAM procedures and after talking with Maintenance and Dispatch we returned to ZZZ. We made a precautionary landing with fire and rescue standing by. Landing was normal no further incident.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported that the landing gear would not retract during climb; resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; 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 Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: It seemed to be a normal takeoff; [but] on departure and climb out we noticed that the left engine vibration indicator was at 5.0. No vibration was felt from the controls or the aircraft. The lead Flight Attendant did mention that he felt a slight vibration on takeoff; but it went away once airborne. I directed the Relief Pilot to see if there was a checklist in our QRH dealing with this problem. The only one was dealing with a actual engine vibration and not with the indicator only. I asked him to call Dispatch and Maintenance on the SATPHONE to get their inputs on our problem. The Relief Pilot went to the expanded engine performance page and read them the information. They advised for us to monitor and evaluate; but [left] it up to us to continue. The engine indications were within limits. N1 was the same as the right engine; the N2 was within 2%; fuel flow was about 600lbs/hr higher. Oil quantity; temperature; and pressure were all almost identical. Upon further evaluation; I wanted to receive more input to this problem. I called Dispatch to let me talk to Maintenance and someone from Training. They coordinated a conference call between Operations; Maintenance; Flight Operations Manager and Dispatch. They wanted me to divert to XXX; because they had another aircraft for us to continue on to YYY and it would give us time to burn fuel to get to landing weight. I concurred and coordinated the divert. Once heading to XXX; we coordinated a fuel dump of 30;000 pounds. VMC weather allowed us to descend to 10;000 feet and burn off fuel to landing weight. A normal descent and landing were accomplished. It was not until parked at the gate when Maintenance inform us that we had engine damage that we became aware of the extent of the damage.




Synopsis: The pilots of a B767 noticed a high engine vibration during takeoff and climb. All of the other engine parameters seemed normal; however after reviewing the situation with company personnel; it was determined that a precautionary diversion was prudent. After a successful landing; engine damaged was identified by Maintenance.
Date: 202007
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current; Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 55 gal drums full of chemicals are not being stored properly inside Hangar Bay X. The drums are sitting on regular wood pallets instead of spill proof platforms per our SOP.The drums appear to be leaking and fluid is going into the floor drain. I have made several local attempts through 'closing the loop' to get the situation corrected with no luck.




Synopsis: Maintenance personnel reported Hazmat violation regarding oil storage drum.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After takeoff DAL 13L; turned [to] 250 at 4;000 FT; 220 KTS. (Clearance was KING7.MQP; 4;000 FT; expect 10;000 in 10 minutes) ATC advised of an aircraft at our 1 o'clock; descending. TCAS showed it was 5 miles on a route east of us at -400 and descending. Since there were layers we could not establish visual contact. While it seemed the aircraft was about to pass on our right according to the TCAS; ATC directed us to turn 270. This turn took us exactly above the aircraft; and within a few seconds of the turn (even before getting to 270) we got 'Traffic' and then 'Climb; Climb'. Pilot flying [took] actions according to flight director and we climbed to 4;500 FT. We transmitted 'RA event climbing' and after conflict was over we resumed 4;000 FT and advised 'resuming altitude'. The Controller prematurely commanded a turn when vertical separation was too low. It is not clear if the other aircraft was descending at all or lingering at 3;600 FT. Though it was apparent that the turn could bring us close to the aircraft; due to the airspace class and traffic density we did not delay our reaction to the [clearance] as we saw that the other aircraft was descending on the TCAS.




Synopsis: First Officer of a corporate jet reported they were vectored directly over traffic that was 400 FT below them; resulting in an RA.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RJAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower RJAA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: RJAA ILS 16R (Y) and ILS 16R (Z). Since the advent of multiple ILS approaches to the same Runway (Y-Z) with multiple transitions; the approach IN USE (often) is NOT line selectable and ATC is NOT cooperative to our constrained system. RJAA ATC is NOT flexible and cooperative. The current ATS in the RJAA TRACON has increased the operational complexity for our operations TODAY and increased the potential for an unintentional aircrew ERROR in the TRACON's airspace. I will present the situation that confronted us. Advised ILS 16R (Y) was the approach in use we requested the (Z) 16R; feeder routings are different STARS feed the various (Y) or (Z) approaches; LOC intercept ALTS are different and the missed approach is very complex in its routing and we were concerned that the (Y) and (Z) missed approach tracks might differ. Our request for the (Z) was DENIED; we used the ILS DME to identify the (Y) fixes on the LOC. One additional observation: it is NOT helpful at all to be inhibited from obtaining RJAA DATIS until within VHF range of the field (about 200 NM). This system constraint is UNSAT especially with rapidly changing weather conditions when it is useful to monitor REALTIME rapidly changing ATIS broadcasts even if it's 200 NM from the field.




Synopsis: B747-400 reports that not all approaches are line selectable at RJAA in the B747 FMC. The result is that an arrival may be assigned that connects to a specific approach (Y or Z) that cannot be selected due to database limitations.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Enroute; First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Approach; Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other approach
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were on descent into ZZZ when Dispatch ACARS messaged us an alternate airport with no other explanation. This got us questioning why. As we got closer to the airport; we could see that the weather returns showed a massive thunderstorm approaching ZZZ. We were trying to coordinate a route around the weather as well as manage our fuel and expectations of route delays if we were to go to alternate. As we were getting vectored; it became clear that we were not going to get to the airport with enough fuel to be able to make it to alternate if needed. There was no alternate on the Release to begin the flight and not a lot of extra fuel. After we asked to divert to alternate; ATC kept giving us vectors either directly into the weather or away from our alternate. ATC kept issuing us vectors directly into very strong weather. When we told ATC that we could not accept those vectors; they said we have to because of a Warning Area. We told them we had to go into the Warning Area as we had no choice at that point due to fuel.As we were trying to get around weather; we made the decision to land at ZZZ1 as that was the closest airport that had good enough weather to get into. We did not think that we would ever make it to our alternate as that was back through the weather and was also experiencing thunderstorms.


Second narrative: Extensive thunderstorms over the [area] prevented us from accepting vectors to avoid Warning Area. I informed ATC I was using my emergency authority to continue into the Warning Area to avoid extreme weather.


Synopsis: 737 flight crew reported entering restricted airspace due to severe weather deviation.