elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Post Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Manuals; Logbook Entry; MEL; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I was troubleshooting a Raytheon Beechcraft 1900-D Transponder Number 2 MEL; when I found that there was a pitot static leak in the First Officer's (FO) System. After hours of looking for the leak; I determined the leak was coming from the FO's Airspeed Indicator (A/I). From that point I went to the Beech 1900D Maintenance Manual (M/M) to find the Airspeed Indicator Part Number (P/N) for the aircraft. Once the Part Number was located; I filled out a Parts Request Form and took it to the Part's Department for issue. When I was handed the new airspeed indicator I noticed that the P/N was not the P/N I requested. I asked the Clerk what was the part I was given; and I was informed that it was an interchangeable P/N. At that point I asked the Clerk how do we really know that it is interchangeable and I was told that the computer automatically pulls up the interchangeable Part Numbers that we use. So at that point I took the Airspeed Indicator to the aircraft and compared it to the faulty airspeed indicator and everything seemed to match. At this time I installed the new [Airspeed] Indicator on the FO's side. After performing all the necessary Pitot/Static and L6000 [Transponder] Tests successfully; I cleaned up my area and cleared the Number 2 Transponder MEL and opened and closed a Write-up for the faulty Airspeed Indicator. Later I was informed that the white arc on the face of the Airspeed Indicator was not correct for that Aircraft. I think the best way to prevent this from happening again would be to make a list of alternate Part Numbers (P/N) and vendors available for the Airframe and Powerplant (A/P) Mechanic to research if there are any questions about a part.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) was informed that a white arc on the face of an Airspeed Indicator (A/I) he had installed at the First Officer's (F/O) position; was not correct for a Beechcraft 1900-D aircraft. Their Parts Department had previously assured Technician their computer system automatically pulls up correct interchangeable part numbers.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Military Transport
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZSE; Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Trainee
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was part of a flight of 3. They were out of 12;000 descending into MWH airspace; MWH had assigned 050 and coordinated an unrestricted descent. Aircraft X could no longer see the other flight members; and began a climb to FL200. MWH APCH called and informed us of the deviation; but the aircraft climbed very fast and didn't notify anyone until well after. There was no traffic there; but there easily could have been [another aircraft] climbing out of GEG or landing LWS lower than FL200. Aircraft X did not follow appropriate protocol or declare an emergency in this situation; leaving MWH APCH and Sector 18 unaware.[I request] that the military follow proper protocol for breaking apart a flight in these conditions. They were never assigned FL200; so why they chose to climb that high is very odd and dangerous.


Second narrative: Aircraft X flight of 3; nonstandard formation was at an altitude of 12;000 feet; assigned 11;000 feet and handed off to Moses Lake approach control (MWH) for descent into their airspace and entry into an IR route. MWH approached called to advise that Aircraft X had to 'de-conflict' themselves from the flight and had climbed to FL200 without warning; or a clearance or declaring emergency.The pilot in this instance needs further training into the ramifications of climbing like this without clearance and or any kind of warning.


Synopsis: ZSE controllers describe a situation where an aircraft climbs from 12;000 feet to FL200 to de-conflict the flight without advising anyone or declaring an emergency.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 0
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was given clearance to fly the RNAV/GPS approach. I was cleared to 1;500 FT and told to proceed to an approach intersection and to report intercepting the glideslope information. I reported this and was told I was cleared for the approach. I began my descent in anticipation of flying into the glideslope. Approach Control then called me and queried me being at 800 FT when I was cleared to 1;500. I reported back that I was in the approach and was going to remain at 800 FT until I intercepted the glidepath. The Controller seemed satisfied with this explanation. In retrospect I commenced my descent too early. I should have remained at 1;500 FT until I had fully intercepted the glideslope.




Synopsis: A C182 pilot flying a RNAV/GPS approach was cleared to maintain 1;500 FT until glideslope intercept but continued his descent to 800 FT thinking he would fly into the glideslope while descending.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While on a flight; we experienced a lightning strike. We were in level flight 19;000 ft. We had passed through a line of showers earlier in the flight and were about 30 miles south of the line. The outside air temperature was about minus 5 degrees C. There were scattered clouds at 25;000 feet. We flew through a small alto-cumulus cloud and saw a bright flash. There was no noise; movement of the aircraft; noticeable electrical abnormalities; nor mechanical changes after the flash. We contacted ATC for a 'radio check' to determine if radios were affected; and ATC responded 'hear you [Aircraft X].'Since there was no vibrations or abnormalities; we continued to our planned destination. The rest of the flight was uneventful.Damage was discovered during the post flight inspection. The lightning damaged one propeller blade tip and the right wingtip static wick. There was also a 1/2 inch diameter hole in trailing edge of the left flap. We contacted [Company] Maintenance Control and Dispatch to report damage.Avoid flight in clouds within 5 degrees of the freezing level if possible.




Synopsis: Flight Crew flying PC-12 aircraft reported lightning strike in flight.
Date: 201212
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout and upon reaching cruise altitude FL380; we experienced moderate turbulence. Immediately; in search of a smoother altitude; we requested lower and found FL360 to be a better ride. As I was doing my cruise flow; I noticed we had a fuel imbalance of around 500 LBS. This alerted us to examine the possibility of a fuel leak. As per the QRH; verifying fuel load and calculated as per the flight plan's anticipated burn; we established the correct FROB and both engine's FF to be correct at around 2;500 LBS. We continued to closely monitor the burn and found the imbalance increasing rapidly with no logical explanation. To prevent the imbalance exceeding any limitations; we tried to opening the crossfeed; which turned out not to be working because of a tripped crossfeed valve circuit breaker. At this point; we agreed to get Maintenance and Dispatch in the loop and my First Officer tried to establish communication. Unfortunately this took about 10 to 15 minutes and by this point the imbalance had reached over 1;000 LBS. The left tank was by now below 2;800 pounds. We were still well over 220 miles from [destination] with [another suitable airport] on the other hand in clear sight only about 120 miles away.During the lengthy attempt to contact Maintenance; we tried to reduce the fuel burn by starting a slow descent. We reduced the left engine to idle and made small thrust adjustments with the right engine to maintain a descent rate of about 1;000 FPM to slow down the increase of the imbalance. According to our calculations; if we were to continue to [destination]; we were going to burn the left tank well below the 2;000 LBS or we were considering an idle descent into [the nearby airport] keeping the fuel level in the left tank above emergency fuel level.Additionally; we had to consider that [destination] was landing north with gusty conditions; which would have required an additional fuel burn. After finally getting everyone in the loop; we had reached an altitude of about FL240 and were just about 80 miles out of [diversion airport]. The mutual decision was made to divert. An emergency was declared and we pulled up to the gate with 2;400 LBS in the left tank and 3;700 LBS in the right tank.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported apparent fuel leak in the left tank that led to a decision to declare an emergency and divert to nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach; I had to shoot the ILS 3 times in order to land. The weather at the time was overcast 300 and 7 miles of visibility. On my first attempt; I overshot the heading assigned by ATC by 35 degrees. I was assigned 080 and turned to 115. My #1 and #2 HSI gave me conflicting information as I was in the turn. I was on the localizer according to the #1 HSI; but the #2 HSI showed that I was off of the localizer. When I checked the frequency; I dialed in 109.5 into #1 HSI instead of 109.7. By the time that I noticed the mistake; ATC queried me about my heading and gave me a right turn to set up for a second attempt on the ILS. The second attempt was going good until ATC issued a low altitude alert. As I referenced my altimeter; my altitude was about 1;100 feet and the glideslope was centered; according to my instruments. I went missed after the alert as a safety precaution to set up for a third attempt. My third and final attempt was successful. I broke out about 70 feet above minimums and landed safely without further trouble.I noticed my instruments had conflicting information; and ATC told me. Those factors combined provided the necessary corrections. Single pilot low IFR is very labor intensive at crucial times in an approach sequence. As a result; there are a multitude of different tasks and checklists happening simultaneously. While I was doing the approach checklist; ATC gave me several instructions. I hurriedly finished the approach checklist and thought I saw that both radios were tuned to 109.7 with a quick visual check. I identified the localizer for 2 but not number 1.I was overloaded and corrected the event. I would slow the airplane down even more to give myself more time during the checklists. Also; I would double check the frequency. Cockpit standardization would help so radios would be in the same place in every airplane instead of scattered wherever they fit.




Synopsis: SA227 Captain flying single pilot IFR reported it took three attempts to successfully complete the ILS approach; including one that involved an ATC-issued low altitude alert.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATIS calling visual approaches for [Runway] 28C. Pilot flying (PF) briefed the ILS Runway 28C. Upon PF request Tower told us to expect ILS 28R and subsequently PF briefed ILS 28R. The flight was cleared to descend and maintain 4000 feet and at that altitude to intercept LOC 28R. While at 4000 feet on the LOC 28R we were then cleared for the ILS 28R and to report a 5 mile final. While I (Pilot Monitoring) was looking out for traffic the PF set 2200 feet in the altitude window (Glideslope intercept altitude) and pushed Flight Level Change without making me aware of the MCP changes. Tower notified us to check our altitude and gave us an altimeter setting of 30.38 in QNH because he showed us at 2300 feet. I then confirmed to tower our altitude and QNH. Tower said that we appeared low and asked if we had the runway 28R in sight. We confirmed that the runway was in sight and PF initiated and immediate climb towards 4000 feet. Ultimately intercepted glideslope at 3000 feet and landed normally. The PF apologized to the tower controller for his improper altitude and he said in effect 'no problem; just wanted to make sure everything was okay'. Adhering to Company SOP's regarding  MCP changes would have prevented this from happening.




Synopsis: B747 First Officer as Pilot Monitoring reports his Captain descending to the glideslope intercept altitude of 2;200 feet well before the ILS procedure allows descent below 4;000 feet. The reporter was looking for traffic and did not notice the descent. The Tower called the low altitude resulting in a climb to 3;000 feet to intercept the glideslope.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
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: While on initial climbout; out of ZZZ; the engine sputtered and exhaust fumes filled the cabin. Instructor asked Student if he smelled it as well; Student confirmed and then opened windows. Instructor notified Tower and made an air turn back. While on downwind; the engine sputtered again. No further issues were noticed.




Synopsis: C172 instructor and student reported engine sputter and fumes during climb; resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 'Aileron Lockout' EICAS illuminated through FL210. The entire crew worked the problem including Dispatch and Maintenance. A joint decision based on current information to return to the departure airport for an overweight landing was made. ATC declared an emergency. Due to the overweight condition; a flap 30 limit speed was exceeded momentarily by 10 KTS by flying pilots; a good reason [for us] to have dumped fuel in my opinion.




Synopsis: A B767-300 EICAS alerted AILERON LOCKOUT while climbing after departure so the decision was made to return to the departure airport where an emergency was declared for an overweight landing.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight air interrupted. Climbing out about 12 minutes into the flight; the left engine generator failed and returned power rapidly. QRH procedures were applied. The left Constant Speed Drive (CSD) RISE was off scale high. Even before completing the checklists the CSD Oil Press Low light illuminated. We returned to the departure airport. I am not sure what caused the problem; but a more frequent check of CSD oil quantity may have prevented the problem.




Synopsis: An MD-83's left CSD RISE temperature was off scale high when the Oil Press LOW light illuminated so the crew completed the QRH and returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202101
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the initial descent to Iand; I was eating my crew meal in the galley. The seatbelt sign came on. I automatically went to check seatbelts and collect trash. I did not intentionally disregard the company's face mask policy; but I walked out from the galley and into the aisle and went 3 rows before I realized that I did not have my face mask on. I had it clipped on to my wings; I immediately place it on my nose and mouth and continued in the aisle checking seatbelts and collecting trash.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported forgetting to wear a face mask during descent while performing safety duties and collecting passenger trash.