elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
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
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout; autothrottle failed at approximately 10;000 FT. While running checklist; ATC notified us of no transponder being received. Received ACARS from Dispatch saying our times where erroneous. While checking that; GND PROX Fail light illuminated. Decided to stop climb at FL280 to remain clear of RVSM airspace. While continuing checklists; Cabin Altitude Warning Horn went off at cabin altitude of about 10;000 FT (10;500 FT cabin altitude was the maximum we got to and no masks deployed). Ran CABIN ALT WARNING QRH and were unable to control cabin altitude in STBY and switched to manual. Commenced descent to 10;000 FT after declaring an emergency. ENG Master Caution illuminated (LOW IDLE) on descent. Contacted Dispatch and coordinated for a divert. Remained in continuous contact with ATC throughout flight. Landed uneventfully at our divert airport with no assistance required. No passengers required assistance upon landing. Maintenance discovered plastic bags and insulation in the Pressurization Outflow Valve after shutdown. Malfunction could not be duplicated. Possible Air/Ground Sensor. Still being reviewed by Maintenance.




Synopsis: B737-400 Captain experiences numerous anomalies during climb including loss of cabin pressurization; possibly caused by a faulty ground/air sensor. Plastic bags were found in the outflow valve on post flight.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the [Sector Radar] position during a moderate level of traffic time. I cleared Aircraft X for a visual approach to Runway 17L and told the aircraft to contact Tower. I had previously released Aircraft Y with the rundown list on a pre-coordinated heading via the SOP.Aircraft X checked back on my frequency unexpectedly and advised me he was performing a go-around. Tower then called me and I asked them what the plan was with the go-around and the departure; which they had released and was airborne directly in front of the go-around. Tower paused; then indicated the go-around was runway heading; and the departure was going to turn right to a 300 heading. In my judgment that was not a safe plan; I issued Aircraft X an immediate right turn to a heading of 260 and told the Tower to issue the departure runway heading to try to gain some sort of separation.The LOA between the facilities has no coordinated go-around procedures. It does have some requirements for the Tower in the event of a go-around; which in this case the Tower did not follow; but no procedure for the Tower to issue. Also the LOA does not require the Tower to ensure any separation between IFR aircraft. Develop and implement in the LOA go around procedures.Change the LOA so that there are separation requirements set.




Synopsis: D01 TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict between an aircraft on a go-around and a departure that were not separated due to lack of facility LOA's not covering this maneuver.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 0L7.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class G 0L7
ATC / advisory: CTAF 0L7
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying NW toward Jean; NV from a field location 25 miles SE of the airport for fuel. I had been monitoring the CTAF since lifting from the field site but had heard no radio traffic. At seven miles SE of Jean I made a blind radio call that I was inbound to land. Immediately after the radio call; the pilot of another aircraft announced that parachute jumping was in progress at Jean. I called the other pilot to coordinate my arrival. He said he would have jumpers away in three minutes. I asked if I would be clear of the jump area if I flew directly to the interstate; then north along the west side of the freeway; the pilot said that would keep me out of the jump area.As I approached to within a half mile of the freeway the jump pilot announced he would have jumpers away in two minutes. Immediately after that announcement; an excited voice came over the radio yelling that a helicopter was over the drop zone. I radioed that I was in contact with the jump pilot; and that I would be west of the freeway well before jumpers were away. The excited voice became unreadable for a period as the operator yelled into the radio. Eventually; the operator quieted down enough to be understood and I heard him say; among other things; he would be '...up to get my tail number'.I continued to Jean where I put on fuel and used the facilities. The jump pilot landed and we talked. He told me another group of jumpers landed at the jump site prior to my arrival; and they may have been upset that I flew over them.




Synopsis: Bell 206 pilot reported someone expressed concern at his proximity to jumpers.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: tl/dr XTR fuel should have been DLY fuel. DLY fuel used to add alternate. XTR fuel on release needs CA's agreement.Upon review of the release for ZZZ; I saw there was an XTR fuel of 1;700 lbs and the remarks section stated 'EXTRA FUEL PER FOM 9.300 PG 1.' I ACARSed Dispatch to ask if it was for ZZZ arrival delay. 'YES' was the answer. At the time; we had a ZZZ1 alternate and ZZZ was VFR. I was ok with the total fuel amount.During the flight; I did more review of the FOM and decided that the XTRA fuel should probably have been part of DLY/REQ fuel. Also; 'EXTRA FUEL PER FOM 9.300 PG 1' was too vague and doesn't meet that very page's requirement 'To ensure accurate flight following; the party requesting the extra fuel should provide the reason for the change.' It also requires mutual agreement.Around the same time; ZZZ1 weather went down and Dispatch amended the release to remove ZZZ1 and add ZZZ2. I conveyed to Dispatch that the departure REQ fuel should have been higher since the 1700 XTR should have been DLY fuel for FAR121.647 'Anticipated Traffic Delays.' The amended release didn't seem to include 'A recalculated or reassessed Flight Plan/OFP' per FOM 9.500 PG 3. And we probably didn't comply with FAR 121.631 since I wouldn't have borrowed from DLY/REQ fuel to add a more distant alternate.ZZZ airport's weather then went down and several aircraft went missed. We performed an autoland with no issues. However; we landed with only reserve fuel. Had we included the 1700 lbs fuel in the DLY/REQ in the original release; we would have had to borrow now 800 lbs from DLY to add the ZZZ2 alternate. I'm not comfortable taking from DLY fuel to add a more distant alternate.Don't use the phrase 'EXTRA FUEL PER FOM 9.300 PG 1' as it doesn't meet the intent of FAR 121.647 or FOM 9.300 PG 1.Don't call DLY fuel XTR. Follow FOM 9.300 PG 1 requiring mutual agreement before XTR fuel is added. Include updated fuel on the Release/Flight Plan with an amended release.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an issue on how fuel was classified during a flight to an airport with known delays.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At Vr (153 KTS); we encountered a significant jolt similar to an engine seizure; but was in fact wake turbulence from the MD-80 that was on upwind. Our aircraft swiftly shifted right then left as I began rotating with both main gears still on the runway. I continued the rotation and climb and we experienced one other; albeit much less significant; wake turbulence roll encounter. DFW Tower was using the all too common technique of clearing one aircraft to take-off while the preceding aircraft has yet to rotate; using the absolute minimum standard of separation and requesting visual contact by the pilot (also used regularly at LAS and PHX to name a few). I believe that controllers have been misled to believe that if the aircraft ahead of you is of the same class; that you will not encounter wake turbulence. This is simply not the case; especially when the aircraft ahead of you is out-climbing you; which was our situation as we were near our maximum take-off weight. I am thankful that my main landing gear will still on the runway; as our experience could have been quite different had we just left the runway and experienced a roll event so close to the ground. I do not believe this technique to be acceptable nor safe and will no longer report the preceding aircraft in sight in order to get proper separation.




Synopsis: A B737-400 Captain encountered wake turbulence at Vr from the preceding MD-80. The Captain feels ATC procedures are a factor in encounters like these.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-800 Advanced
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Cooling System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector; Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; MEL; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: While troubleshooting an audio squeal at the Captain's cockpit station; ZZZ AMT discovered the AMU in the E/E was overheated. After removing the unit and allowing it to cool off; the AMTs found the rack cooling plugs were filled with a rubber plug. Given that this aircraft was less than 2 weeks old; it was believed that the rack cooling holes were inadvertently left plugged. The ZZZ AMTs misread the plug configuration placard on the rack; and my department did as well. As the [Maintenance] Manager; I allowed the aircraft to depart with the plugs removed. Boeing confirmed on the following day that the plugs should have been installed. The aircraft operated one leg out of configuration before corrective actions were taken.




Synopsis: Technicians reported misidentifying aircraft configuration; resulting in the removal of aircraft equipment rack cooling plugs and the aircraft flying misconfigured.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was providing OJT on Local Control 2. Aircraft X was an IFR departure. The aircraft was given the incorrect Departure frequency. Upon shipping aircraft; the trainee realized it should have been Diablo frequency and that a departure release was required. She gave Aircraft X the correct frequency and then called Diablo to ask for release but aircraft was already airborne. We should have had a CFR placard displayed as a visual cue to call Diablo for release.




Synopsis: OAK Tower Local Controller; realizes aircraft departed airport without a release.  Memory jogger was not used.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GGG.VORTAC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The training objectives for this flight were commercial ground reference maneuvers and pattern work with a commercial student. Returning to the airport for pattern work; one of our line items was to simulate an engine fire. We had briefed this on the ground as to the book procedures. Our practice with this simulation is to touch the control as we say the checklist items. In this case; the student pulled the mixture and the fuel shutoff valve to the off position; but simulated turning the fuel pump off and master off. The fuel shutoff valve is located on the floor and I saw the student reach down as he said the check list item. I asked him why he shut the engine down because I saw him pull the mixture. He then pushed the mixture back in and we expected an immediate restart. When we didn't get a restart; he gave control of the airplane to me and I turned back toward an open area. We were at 1000 [feet] AGL when the simulation started. After a few seconds of trying to get a restart with various combinations of throttle and mixture setting; I elected to simply fly the airplane and landed on a mining road without damage to the airplane or property on the ground. After we were on the ground; we realized the fuel shut off had been pulled.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported the pilot receiving instruction inadvertently selected the fuel valve off during engine failure simulation.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After the touchdown on the threshold; I continued to apply back pressure on the yoke until the nose wheel came to the ground and then I applied brakes with increasing pressure to test out the braking action of the runway. The aircraft decelerated normally; I would describe the braking as good to medium. We had slowed down to a slow taxi speed and by around Mid-field I increased power slightly to accelerate a small amount. As we approached the end of the runway at a normal taxi speed (just below a brisk walk) I applied brakes to make the turn and the brakes had zero impact on the speed or direction of the aircraft. I turned the rudders to try and make the turn and the direction of the aircraft was unaffected. I then announced to the first officer that we were likely to go off the end of the runway. I was on center line still and if we went off we would not hit the runway lights if I maintained center line. I stopped attempting to turn applied full aft yoke; full braking and ensured the throttles were at idle. The First Officer and I watched slowly as the aircraft departed the paved surface and stopped as soon as we were off the runway. I looked around there was a small snow pile a couple inches deep and we were on hard frozen ground. I then added power returned to the runway surface and taxied into the gate and stopped. Even though braking action was good on one part of the runway I should have not assumed braking action would be similar and proceeded with extra caution as I attempted to make the turn. I should have slowed down even more so as I approached the end of the runway. I also should not have taxi back onto the paved surface.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: C402 crew reported they departed the paved surface of the runway on rollout due to nil braking effectiveness.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While passing through the cabin during flight I noticed that there was a lap infant in Row 18. I consulted the passenger manifest and that was her assigned seat. I consulted our manual to confirm that lap children are not allowed to sit the row directly aft of an exit. I then confirmed the situation with the A and B Flight Attendants and determined our action; to move the guest to our open row. I explained the situation to our guest and moved her without complaint.I feel like this should have been flagged by our system and caught before they made it onto the plane.


Second narrative: Passenger with lap child was seated in 18A aft of exit row. Passenger and infant were moved to 25F. There was no one in the middle row 18B but we checked our manual and regulation states no lap infant forward or aft of exit row. After takeoff; Flight Attendant C noticed the passenger with lap child aft of exit row and alerted me and Flight Attendant B. We consulted the flight manual and it states no lap infants aft or forward if an exit row. The passenger and her infant were moved to row 25.We are not sure if with the new seating regulations leaving the middle seat open that having a lap child aft or forward of the exit row is still considered a violation. We followed the company manual to be safe.


Synopsis: Flight Attendants reported a passenger with infant sitting near emergency exit.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Golden Eagle 421
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right engine quit as I was cleared into [the] Bravo [airspace] at 2;000 feet AGL. I declared an emergency; feathered the engine and landed back at my departure airport. No issues other than the engine.




Synopsis: A C-421 pilot declared an emergency and returned safely to his departure airport when the right engine quit at ~2;000 feet MSL.