elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bell Helicopter Textron Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While in cruise flight on the return leg from Medical Center Hospital; I noticed the shadow of a fixed wing aircraft out the right side of the helicopter at approximately the 2 O'clock position. The shadow was defined and large enough to concern me that this airplane was very close. I let the crew know in a concerned tone of voice that I could see an airplane shadow and asked them to help me locate it. At this time I was approximately 1;000 FT AGL and held my heading and course due to the fact I did not know where the plane was. I watched the shadow out the right door continue to head in a west heading as we were southbound. The paramedic in the left seat announced that he spotted the plane at the 11 O'clock position above us but immediately lost it. At this time the shadow started a left turn and was tracking in the same direction of our heading before the nurse in the right seat announced it was at 3 O'clock low and was turning and flying below us. Both crew members were able to keep a visual on it as it flew directly under us then continued to the east. The medevac crew continued to track it until it was out of site. As we continued to home base we discussed the chain of events and the factors that contributed to this being a confusing situation. My initial thought was that the position of the sun made it hard to see the plane in the first place and the fact that I was using the center post as a sun block also created a blind spot. When I saw the planes shadow it appeared to be straight and level but none of us knew where it was except for the fact it was very close due to the size and definition of its shadow. The plane was spotted above us and then lost. The shadow then changed direction and the plane was spotted again flying below us; creating even more confusion and concern. We all agreed that the pilot of this small high wing plane most likely never saw us and was in the start of a descending left hand turn as it passed over the top of us at no more than 100 FT and the flew underneath of us at approximately 300 FT below us.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot describes a NMAC with a high wing aircraft at 1;000 FT AGL as the helicopter pilot is returning to base. The aircraft is first detected by its shadow in close proximity to the helicopter shadow.
Date: 201907
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Tower cleared us for a visual approach while we were at 6;000 feet on a right downwind for Runway 10L. The field was clearly visible; as was the entire area around the field. There were random clouds around and weather was moving in from the southwest. I started my turn inside of abeam [the numbers] of the final approach fix; planning a short approach. I was fully configured as I made my turn to base.While turning to base; we encountered clouds during turn to base and descent from 6;000 [feet] to initially 5;500 feet. I lost visual references for several seconds until I descended out of them. I flew a low base to a short final and landed uneventfully. Storms and random cloud layers were moving quickly onto the field and I believe we may have had self-induced pressure to get the aircraft on deck. We descended until clear of the clouds; leveled off; and drove over to the glide slope and landed.




Synopsis: Pilot reported being on a visual approach; but having to go through clouds.
Date: 202109
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Minimum Equipment List (MEL)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure; MEL
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: I was made aware by the A [Flight Attendant] that we only had three of our four required emergency checklists for both ditching and land emergency evacuations. As a crew we determined this to be a 'no-go' issue; so the A requested one each of the checklists that were missing. We were initially informed that the station didn't have any. Immediately upon being informed of the situation; the Captain became very agitated and began questioning the A as to why we needed the checklists. After an explanation was attempted; the Captain; again in a very agitated manner; proceeded to get on his cell and call the Chief Pilot. As a crew; we checked the manual to confirm that we were correct in our understanding that we had to have four on board and confirmed this to be accurate; to the best of our interpretation. Someone also called for an Inflight Supervisor to come to the gate; but I am not exactly certain which of the crew made that call. A Supervisor did arrive and informed us that they were looking for one; but she had been informed that we were ok using our [tablets] in the event they couldn't find one. At no point up to this time did I feel like anyone considered this more than an annoyance and an unnecessary interruption to their abilities to board the plane for an on time departure. I was even threatened with termination of my job after I said I would not fly if we didn't have the proper equipment. We as Flight Crew are already on high alert where safety and security was concerned; we all felt like no one else cared about anything else but the flight being delayed. I have never felt less supported or more pressured by a Captain in my time of flying. When all was said and done; they found additional copies in the training room; which was what we had recommended about 20 minutes prior.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a required checklist was missing and was found to be non MELable. This caused a breakdown in crew communications and a delay.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working a few SAN arrivals westbound over IPL. The EKANE MOA was active. I noticed a limited [data block] at FL220 about 5 miles outside of EKANE in my airspace. At that time Yuma Range initiated a handoff and called me. I accepted radar. Then a few seconds later another limited [data block] at FL220 was 5 miles in my airspace. They again initiated a flash and called. I told them I would not take a stack and they needed to give me 10 miles in trail of the first one. Then a few minutes later I Yuma Range called and said hand off unable flash. They gave me the code and I noticed it was another limited [data block] 5 miles into my airspace; this time on the west side of EKANE. I asked 'Is he VFR?' they responded 'No.' I told them unable and I had to call them back because I was unable to start a track on the code and find the flight plan. They said they would keep him in EKANE although he was already in my airspace. However; the airplane checked in with me anyway. I asked the pilot if he was VFR and he stated; 'No;' he received the clearance from YUMA. At that time the Supervisor came over and helped me get a track started while I worked the other traffic. After that I asked him to call them to see why they allowed 3 IFR aircraft in my airspace without hand offs and the one I said no to.Train them that you can't enter someone else's airspace without a hand off and what unable means.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller describes situation where Yuma Approach Controller violates his airspace with three different aircraft. This is considered an airspace deviation and leads to an increased workload for the receiving Controller.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were set to depart [and] it was a hot day with ATIS reporting about 34 degrees Celsius. On the inbound flight the crew wrote up the airplane for an ENG EXCEEDANCE; which was due to an ITT (Inlet Turbine Temperature) over temp on the #2 Engine. Mechanics met the airplane and after a visual inspection and clearing of the message signed the aircraft off as airworthy. We pushed off the gate slightly delayed. Push and engine start were all normal and we continued our taxi; at which point we were cleared for takeoff just as we were pulling up to the runway.I was the pilot flying and the FO (First Officer) was pilot monitoring; the winds were from 080/10. We started the takeoff roll; at 40% N1 the engines stabilized and all parameters were normal; so we continued the takeoff roll.At 80 kts the FO called '80 kts; thrust normal;' during my quick scan off the EICAS I noticed Engine 2 ITT was hovering around 950-955; but I called checks as it was still in normal operating range. As we continued the takeoff roll the right side ITT continued to creep up; and at 100 kts the FO called the ITT exceedance; a quick look at the EICAS showed the ITT gauge in the red. At about 105 kts I proceeded to call the abort; and applied maximum reverse thrust and brakes. We maintained centerline and slowed down; at 80 kts the ENG EXCEEDANCE caution message came up and we exited the runway. Once clear of the runway I called the FA's (Flight Attendants); and made a PA to the passengers; it was also at this time that we got a BRK OVERHEAT message. The left brakes were in the yellow range at about 440-450; the right side brakes were at roughly 280.We then proceeded to contact dispatch and maintenance; and were advised to return to the gate. During the extended taxi back the brakes had sufficient time to cool back down into the green range. The mechanic that met us inspected both brakes and tires and noted everything to be normal. Passengers were deplaned as were told the airplane would be grounded for the night; and we waited for another airplane to arrive.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported rejecting the takeoff on a hot day at a high elevation airport when the #2 engine ITT was exceeded.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While cruising at FL320; ATC issued a descent clearance crossing restriction to cross 30 NM north of CRG at FL240. The First Officer (pilot not flying) set in and armed the assigned altitude which we both confirmed. I entered a point in the FMS to remind me where the restriction was and when to start a descent. In this case the descent was to be initiated around the NOWAY Intersection which was 24 NM ahead. At around 20 NM from the crossing restriction ATC questioned if we would make our restriction. The First Officer advised ATC that we had started our descent too late and we were unable to make the restriction. ATC stated that it was OK and to just expedite our descent to FL260 instead. We were then handed off to the next Controller with no further comments or concern. The aircraft was not equipped with VNAV and I did not set up the restriction in the PMS. I was the pilot flying and at the time was eating a snack and monitoring the aircraft while on autopilot. I stated to the First Officer that I forgot about the restriction; and should have set up a better reminder.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: An MD-80 was given a crossing restriction north of CRG VOR; but the distracted crew with no VNAV started the descent late so ATC raised the altitude constraint which they complied with.
Date: 201907
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Flight Engineer / Second Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the First Officer operating Aircraft X from LFPG to MEM. We were approximately 5 hours into cruise flight and I was in crew rest. I felt the plane lurch and was recalled to the cockpit. The plane had a #2 engine failure. The Captain was hand flying and the Relief Pilot was running QRH checklists. I took over ATC duties and per the Captain; I organized a descent initially to FL290 (29;000 ft.) for the engine failure and later to FL280 (28;000 ft.) due to traffic; we did not declare an emergency at that point but we did notify them of the reason for descent. The #2 auto pilot was engaged. Evaluating the situation for the shutdown procedure; we observed 0 oil press but a quantity of 18. The other two pilots told me that they had an oil filter bypass level 1 alert 30 minutes prior. After all the applicable checklist had been done; we messaged with Company and started to evaluate our options. All other systems were operating normally and we had plenty of gas; so the discussion we had got down to the place we all felt most comfortable with that had good weather and crash; fire and rescue in the middle of the night. ZZZ fit all the criteria and the Captain made the call. I was now back in my seat as Pilot Monitoring and First Officer. At top of descent; I [advised ATC] and then we flew an uneventful ILS and taxied under our own power to the gate with a ZZZ rescue truck following us. Cause would appear to be metal in the oil system.




Synopsis: Flight crew flying MD-11 encountered engine failure in cruise.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E CCR
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We spotted a drone going in the opposite direction of our plane. We were about 2 miles north of CCR at 6;500 ft. MSL and the drone was about 500-1000 ft. below us and about 1000 feet horizontally from us flying south.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot was in cruise flight at approximately 6;500 feet. An undescribed UAV passed in the opposite direction approximately 1;000 feet below.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Being in contact with LA Center at 17;000 feet we were instructed to fly direct to TIJ (Tijuana) VOR. After abeam DAMUG fix we noticed an aircraft was flying direct to us 600 feet above and descending; we were instructed to climb to FL230 but at the same time we received the traffic aural warning and asked to monitor vertical speed; by the time we saw the plane it was like 2 NM and 200 feet above and the resolution [advisory] was to descend -2;200 feet/min. We followed the resolution [advisory] and almost immediately we were out of the conflict. We informed Center and were cleared to continue the climb.The frequency was jammed; it wasn't easy for the controller to repeat the instruction immediately.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported Los Angeles Center frequencies were jammed; making traffic management and awareness difficult.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nozzle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I started my service on a B737-800 aircraft while another mechanic was checking the IDG oil level and Differential Pressure Indicator (DPI) on # 1 engine. Another mechanic was to start the fuel nozzles replacement. After I completed my 1-Service; I noticed # 2 engine cowlings opened up so I figured that must be the engine getting the fuel nozzles. I found one new nozzle at the In-station for our plane so I brought it in the leads office and told the other mechanics there were three missing as we were to replace four nozzles altogether. Our lead was notified and more nozzles were ordered and they finally arrived around 23:00; so one mechanic took the left side of the engine and another mechanic took the right side of the engine and began removing the fuel nozzles to replace them. I was the third person so I was handing tools to them and getting whatever they needed. After the nozzles were replaced I helped to safety all the bolts on the engine that were removed. After inspection had looked the engine over for safety and security I closed # 2 engine cowlings. It wasn't until the next day that I was informed that the nozzles were the wrong part number and it was supposed to be done on # 1 engine.  I had never looked at any of the paperwork to verify the other mechanics with part numbers or which engine we were to work on.  Boeing 737-800 Maintenance Flow; Deferred Maintenance.  [Recommend] Make our Air Carrier paperwork more clear on which engine they want work done as it is very confusing. I myself; have had a problem in the past trying to figure out which engine they want worked on. The part numbers should of been checked on the new Nozzles and compared to the IPC; and then double checked by another mechanic.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) was informed the fuel nozzles that he and two other Technicians had installed on Number 2 Engine were not only incorrect Part Numbers (P/Ns); but the nozzles were scheduled to be installed on Number 1 Engine. Technician noted the paperwork for their B737-800 aircraft was confusing and not clear about which engine required work.