elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201311
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Parked Pre-Departure
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During preflight I performed an Optional Check (per our Flight Manual) of the Standby Hydraulic System.  I found the Standby Pump indicating normal operation; but the Standby Low Pressure Light remained illuminated.  Maintenance was called and they confirmed the low pressure indication and began troubleshooting.  What we had was a pump running; but not putting out any pressure.  After various tests and about 45 minutes; our mechanics informed us they had fixed the problem.  The Maintenance Logbook [indicated that Maintenance] found the Hydraulic Supply line to Standby Pump partially disconnected at the Standby Reservoir.  Reconnected same. Verified proper operation of Standby Rudder and Alternate Flaps.  Verified Quick Disconnect at reservoir is secure; OK to continue. There is no way to know how long this aircraft had been flying without a Standby Hydraulic System.

Callback: Reporter stated the Optional Check of the Standby Hydraulic System use to be part of their routine Preflight Check procedures in their Flight Manual for the B737 aircraft. He felt he should check the system and that's when he noticed the Standby Pump indicated a normal operation; but the Standby Low Pressure Light remained illuminated. He does not recall the Standby Hydraulic Reservoir being low; especially since he did not see any evidence of hydraulic fluid leaking. He got the impression; when he spoke with company mechanics; that the partially disconnected hydraulic supply line to the Standby pump was a Quick Disconnect type coupling; which he suspects is probably why no hydraulic leak occurred; but also prevented any hydraulic fluid flow to the Standby Pump.



Synopsis: Captain reports finding the Standby Hydraulic System Pump indicating normal operation; but the Standby Low Pressure Light remained illuminated when he performed an Optional Preflight Check on a B737-900 aircraft. Maintenance found Hydraulic Supply Line to Standby Pump partially disconnected. Unknown how long aircraft had been flying without a functional Standby Hydraulic System.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN; Class D APA
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01; Tower APA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On departure from APA [we were] initially given runway heading. Soon after departure; tower gave [us] a clearance to turn and climb to the east along with a traffic advisory of traffic entering the downwind. TCAS showed a traffic conflict with traffic within 3 miles and 300 ft. We requested a runway heading until clear of traffic. Afterwards; tower cleared to turn east and contact TRACON. TRACON gave [us] a traffic alert with traffic within 700 ft. of our assigned Altitude. Crew requested a climb to avoid traffic converging traffic. Traffic then advised as maneuvering and shown on a TCAS within 400 ft. Last call of traffic 400 ft. below us and gave us direct fix ZZZZZ toward the previous reported trafficking. Many aircraft within airspace while multiple clearances were blocked to include our clearance to ZZZZZ. A clearance to maintain 9;000 ft. was received. At some point both crew members agreed 10;000 ft. was the altitude. A short time later we received an RA and ATC gave an immediate descent and turn to heading 360 and maintain 9;000 ft. ATC gave a phone number to call once on ground. Two close encounters within 4 minutes of takeoff with VFR traffic: one on takeoff and one before turn to ZZZZZ; both less than 500 ft. separation.Additional TRACON frequencies [are needed] during high workload times. Multiple blocked transmissions and VFR flight following request in short time on this frequency. Crew both agreed 10;000 ft. selected in the window. Potential wrong altitude set and agreed upon in altitude selector.




Synopsis: Pilot reported multiple traffic conflicts shortly after departure.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GSP.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower GSP
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Being my first trip into GSP; as well as the Captain's; we spent time en route at cruise altitude on our previous leg reviewing the 10-9 airport diagram as well as the 10-7 page to understand and agree on gate locations. This information was also reviewed en route to GSP. On the taxi out from GSP; we taxied from our gate to Runway 22 G Intersection via the ramp. Prior to taxiing; we reviewed and verbalized the taxi directions several times while referencing our 10-9 pages which were clipped to the map board by the number 2 window. We each concurred the route showed an active straight taxiway from our gate; through the entire ramp; to A6 Intersection. (The 10-9B page shows a movement/non-movement area along our taxi route.) After taxiing past the A4 Intersection; Ground asked us how our taxi ride was. Not sure what they were asking; we responded smooth. No further comment was made and we were subsequently cleared for takeoff. Upon reaching cruise altitude; we once again reviewed our 10-9 pages; still clipped to the map board; which confirmed our taxi out as an active taxiway. However; when we looked at the 10-7 page; the area north of A-4 to the first set of hangers is labeled as a non-taxi area. Both the 10-9 and 10-9B pages clearly depict this area as an approved and active taxiway with no other markings saying it was not. After landing; we talked to the Tower Supervisor to clarify our taxi out and he said the specific area used to be a taxiway but is now used for fuel truck movement. He said there were no issues from ATC regarding incursions. He also said that this has happened numerous times from other aircraft.


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


Synopsis: A flight crew taxied on what appeared to be a taxiway north of GSP Taxiway A4 and discovered after the fact that area was a non-movement area used by fuel trucks.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MMMX
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: to 5r the GPS has had a RNP fail. This occurs before SMO to just after. The FMS for some reason does not keep a satisfactory RNP. Just seems like a safety concern since it is not getting better.


Second narrative: I was pilot flying during the final arc turn to the approach course to runway 05R the GPS lost navigation signals and went into DR mode causing the autopilot to disconnect at a very high workload phase of the flight. We had already had issues with last minute ATC clearance changes and we had been deviating around numerous thunderstorms during the approach so having GPS signal issues made an already difficult arrival even worse.All pilots [of this fleet] were notified several months ago that they could expect anomalies with the GPS going into to Mexico City so I was aware of the problem but as an infrequent flyer to that destination I had not experienced it firsthand until this flight. If a GPS problem like that were to occur in the US or Canada it would be much less of an issue due to superior air traffic control communications; monitoring and procedures. When it occurs in Mexico City with high terrain in close proximity and the frequent severe thunderstorms that we encountered [that] night coupled with vague guidance and instructions from Mexican air traffic control it becomes an extremely hazardous situation.


Synopsis: Another Air Carrier crew reports loss of GPS capability in the vicinity of SMO during approach to MMMX.
Date: 201808
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was doing a training flight with my instructor. I really don't want to get him in trouble but we got a little unsafe. I wanted to file a report so that other people can learn from my experience. There were storms coming in. We however were clear of the storms so we kept doing the lesson. During the lesson I brought up possibly diverting and waiting for the storm to pass over [the] airport. I mentioned diverting about 3 times. Each time he said 'we'll be fine.' We flew back full power to beat the storm. About 2 to 3 miles from the storm I pulled the power back and below 140 dropped the gear below 111 dropped one notch of flaps. Than a massive gust hit us and our airspeed went up to about 150. It caused enough turbulence for me to hit my head on the roof of the cockpit and for my headset to partially come off. I raised the flaps and kept the gear down. My instructor started flying the airplane along with me. I asked him who was flying and he said he's helping me but I saw that he was flying and I let him fly. We only had a visual approach and when we landed I couldn't see outside the windshield. We should have diverted; or gone around; or requested an approach as the weather was really close to [the airport]. Continuing the landing was unsafe because we could have gotten into a micro-burst gotten hit with downdrafts and a tailwind and crashed.




Synopsis: PA44 pilot reported continuing in unsafe weather conditions following several suggestions to the instructor pilot.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MDW
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Fatigue; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were proceeding direct to SAILZ on the RNAV Y 22L. ATC told us to turn right 20 degrees and 'join the final.' I turned right 20 degrees and Captain went to FMS to put in an intercept to the final approach segment which begins at YACHT. Quickly realized this did not make sense as intercepting the extended centerline of the runway would take us over downtown/inconsistent with this type of approach. Had ATC meant left 20 which would have us join the centerline of the runway south of downtown? Had ATC meant right 20 to join the INTERMEDIATE segment of the approach; a clearance I had never heard before in 10;000 hours of flying? Captain attempted to clarify but could not get a response. ATC then advised we were right of the intended course. They issued a heading to rejoin the approach which would have taken us head on into arriving traffic. We rejoined approach on our own and landed without incident.Recommend a speed adjustment instead of heading if the intent was to adjust spacing. No 'heading to join' when you're basically already on the published approach. I should have clarified before starting the turn. Unfamiliarity with the approach and approaching almost eight hours of block; I caught the confusion after I turned.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a C90 TRACON Controller issued a 20 degree right turn while on the MDW RNAV Runway 22L Approach which would have placed the aircraft over the city. The crew realized the error; but ATC did not respond to clarify. ATC did finally issue an accurate vector to rejoin the approach.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Arriving in Denver on LAWGR arrival; received vectors for visual 16L. Passing 10;000 ft. GPS L FAIL message displayed for a few seconds. On the approach at 1;500 ft.; GPS FAIL L GPS FAIL R appeared. Transponder displayed a FAIL light and captains clock went blank. IPAD also lost location services. This remained throughout landing and taxi. We sent in a report and contacted Maintenance.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a GPS interruption while on approach to Runway 16L at DEN.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 33
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight at 2;500 feet MSL; when alternating fuel tank supply; the fuel tank selector lever stuck in OFF. Engine failed due to fuel starvation and the aircraft began descent with the emergency landing planned for [a suitable airport].At about 700 feet MSL the selector was positioned to a fuel tank and the engine restarted. I proceeded to destination about 30nm north for maintenance. I had an A&P technician examine the fuel selector; clear any debris and lubricate the mechanism.




Synopsis: BE33 pilot reported the engine quit when the fuel tank selector lever stuck in the OFF position.  The engine was successfully restarted when the selector was able to be moved to a proper position at about 700 feet altitude.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were climbing out of DEN on the EEONS 8. Crossed HIDEF at 10;000 feet and started the climb again. We started to pick up wake turbulence from the 777 in front of us through about 11;000 feet. We received a call from ATC for traffic northeast of us as we were coming through 11;500 feet. We started looking for the traffic and when I looked back inside we were going through 12;000 feet about 1-2 miles prior to SHOBO. We began correcting back to 12;000 feet. Max altitude was about 12;300 feet. No call or mention of the deviation from ATC.


Second narrative: While climbing out on flight from DEN via EEONS8 departure from 34L; we were given a traffic call from ATC as we neared SHOBO. At the same time; we encountered wake turbulence from a heavy aircraft on the same departure. As Pilot Monitoring; I was looking north for traffic as the aircraft was responding to the turbulence and controlling the aircraft. Simultaneously; we neared SHOBO; which has a no higher than 12;000 feet restriction. PIC called altitude at approx 250 feet above the restriction; and smoothly leveled; then began descent to maintain 12;000 feet until passing SHOBO; then resumed climb. No ATC comm was received during this time.


Synopsis: B737NG flight crew reported a distraction from wake turbulence contributed to climbing through an altitude restriction departing DEN in trail of a B777.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Left the gate with Tail Cone Unlock Alert warning deferred. The doors were verified closed by Maintenance per the MEL. During takeoff at around 40 KTS we got the LVL 2 alert and master caution for the Tail Cone unlock and we rejected the takeoff; ran the Rejected Takeoff checklist; consulted with Maintenance and continued the flight. Subsequent takeoff was uneventful with no warnings for the tail cone unlock.The remarks section of the MEL for this deferral says 'TAIL CONE UNLOCK alert may REMAIN displayed' The alert was never displayed during start up and taxi and I expected the light would stay that way. When I saw it displayed on takeoff I reacted like I would do for any Level 2 alert and Master Caution prior to 80 KTS. I think if the MEL would say something like 'TAIL CONE UNLOCK LIGHT ALERT MAY INTERMITTENTLY DISPLAY DURING ALL PHASES OF FLIGHT' perhaps we would have been able to process the event a lot better.


Second narrative: [The warning] then appeared again upon lowering the gear on approach during another critical phase of flight triggering the master caution and then going away only to reappear every minute or so during the approach until touchdown. This was an ILS approach in visual conditions but still takes attention away for a moment to see and deal with turning the Master Caution off and determining that it was only this known problem. I feel that had it been in IMC conditions for takeoff/approach or even worse a CAT2/3 approach this would have turned into a more problematic distraction during an extremely critical phase of flight.


Synopsis: Recurring warning for the previously deferred 'Tail Cone Unlock Alert Message' caused the flight crew of an MD-11 to reject their takeoff at low airspeed.