elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Normal approach on a clear day.  Crossed SILER at 210 KTS and 11;000 FT as per BOWIE STAR landing north.  After passing SILER I selected 202 KTS. (+/- 10 KTS is the max airspeed deviation allowed by ATC). A mile or two after SILER we were given a descent to 6;000 FT then 4;000 FT.  I selected level change; asked for and got Flaps 10.  The aircraft was stable and descending normally at 202 KTS.  Passing 9;000 FT in descent we began to encounter light to moderate chop.  I made a nice landing; however; at 6;300 FT the airspeed indicator read 215 KTS for 3 seconds. Due to the turbulence and my dependence on the autopilot to maintain airspeed I did not notice the airspeed infraction; but was told about it later. The airspeed indicator on our 737's is like no other airspeed indicator I have ever seen.  In 30+ years of flying jet aircraft no other airplane has such a sensitive airspeed indicator.  It appears to be very sensitive to fluctuations in temperature.  At cruise; I've seen the IAS jump 20+ KTS in less than a second without the throttles moving; a pitch change; and in smooth air.  The autopilot is unwilling; in level change; to make the same aggressive pitch changes necessary to maintain airspeed as the airspeed indicator is willing to fluctuate.  Until the fluctuations in temperature sensitivity are dampened this sort of over speed will continue.




Synopsis: A B737-800 pilot was notified of a flap overspeed and commented that this aircraft type is sensitive to environmental changes and additionally the autopilot does not aggressively respond to airspeed fluctuations.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Enroute to MEM; received holding instructions over WHOLL on the BRBBQ arrival with an Expect Further Clearance (EFC) time of 15 minutes. After plugging into FMS showed arrival fuel would be about 8.2; flight plan Fuel Over Destination (FOD) was 8.9.....Later they added our EFC time to extend 10 more minutes...at that point fuel over destination predicted FOD about 7.2. We decided that if we were unable to start towards MEM by the EFC time we would divert to LIT or STL. Predicted fuel at those destinations were about 8.7 and 8.2.Center turned us towards MEM 2 minutes prior to our EFC time. FMS predicted fuel at MEM to be 7.1; when we actually landed we had 5.1 of fuel.On taxi in we received low fuel alert; and blocked in with 4.7 on fuel. 5.0 is our emergency fuel.[Cause was] unexpected holding in MEM. Plan for more fuel at destination when no alternate required higher FOD.


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


Synopsis: A large twin engine transport aircraft flight crew reported blocking in with 5100 LBS of fuel even though the FMS projected 7100 LBS.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DTS.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sierra 24
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D DTS
ATC / advisory: TRACON VPS
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Traffic called as a Skyhawk at 1800'. We were climbing through 1800 on a 220 deg vector from Approach. I responded 'looking'. Could not visually acquire aircraft. Finally saw the aircraft as he passed directly below me. Aircraft had been head on and slightly below horizon and could not see until 2-3 seconds before crossing. The Controller never gave a traffic alert or made any attempt to vector us away from a near miss. Other aircraft talking to the Class D local Tower; I think.




Synopsis: Pilot reported being advised by ATC of traffic; but reporter stated Controller never gave them a traffic alert or attempted to vector away from traffic.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Door
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon gear retraction after takeoff; got lots of noise and vibration from front left area of the cockpit. No warnings or instrument indications of anything wrong were ever presented from the aircraft. As speed increased and we cleaned up and accelerated on an NADP1 schedule; vibrations became greater and wind noise very loud.  We got as fast as 240 knots indicated. I directed the First Officer (Pilot Flying) not to accelerate any more. At FL150; we leveled off and I directed the First Officer to slow the aircraft. I worked with ATC to allow us time to investigate. Engines; doors; windows; packs and pressurization were all normal. Discussed with the First Officer; and decided to return to ZZZZ and check the aircraft on the ground. No fuel dump required; no emergency was declared. We put the gear down at 25 miles to touchdown; and the noise and vibration reduced significantly. All gear indications were in the green. Landing by First Officer was uneventful.  The brace from the nose gear to the left nose gear door had broken; and the door was swinging freely on its two hinges. The gear door had a crack in it near the rear hinge.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported after gear retract; noise and vibration were heard/felt; resulting in a return to airport.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LEX.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LEX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our clearance was 'Taxi. Hold short Charlie'. We were coming from the backside of the B Concourse. As I came around the end of the terminal building Ground said; 'You're on Charlie'. On that part of the ramp area it is not clearly marked where Charlie Taxiway begins. Looking at the Jepp 10-9; it appears to begin once you have come around the end of the terminal. That's when you first see the 'C' Taxiway sign too... thus the confusion.It would have been helpful if the Controller would have told us to hold short abeam a specific gate before we rounded that corner. Apparently he wanted us to hold short for an inbound jet which was never communicated either. That knowledge would have given us more clarification too. The Jeppesen chart should depict that taxiway more clearly as going around and behind the terminal.




Synopsis: A pilot taxiing from the back side of the LEX 'B' Concourse failed to recognize the extent of Taxiway 'C' and entered the taxiway when his clearance was to hold short.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing with a 10-15 knot turbulent crosswind; I was rolling out on the runway which slopes downhill in that direction; when I discovered I had no right brake action at all; despite trying hard and often. The canard pusher aircraft steers with brakes. So; once my speed dropped below the aerodynamic effectiveness of the rudders; it slowly weathervane into the wind and went off the runway onto a rough; sandy surface. After rolling about fifty feet; the nose gear collapsed; stopping the aircraft. I was not injured; and no fire occurred in the dry brush. Post incident I found the cause of the brake failure was a total loss of brake fluid through a cracked; but still intact; copper brake line. The incident could have been prevented with better design. The broken part; a three inch section of copper tubing; had been in service for over fifteen years; but a flexible aircraft standard hose should have been used in this application. Second; I had noticed a peculiar brake response on taxi out that day; but on repeatedly testing the brake; could not repeat it; and mistakenly concluded it was functioning normally. In hindsight; the peculiar response was probably the result of brake action with a leaky brake line! I should have taxied back; removed wheel fairings; and investigated further. The wet brake was not apparent with the wheel fairings on; but would have been obvious with their removal.




Synopsis: Long EZ right brake failure during landing roll out in a strong crosswind. As speed decreased and the rudder became ineffective the aircraft departed the runway causing nose gear collapse. A cracked brake line was found to be the culprit during post flight inspection.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wing Access Panel
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I woke to find a text message from [a] First Officer to check my company e-mail for a message from the Duty Officer concerning a missing panel on our aircraft: a reminder that FOM Section 2.15 requires that you fill out and submit a safety report due to the circumstances you experienced on Flight XX. On postflight inspection; the MD-11 was found to be missing a panel from the upper right wing outboard of the spoilers; approximately 72' inches X 18' inches.The aforementioned flight was uneventful throughout. We accomplished all required checklists and preflight/post-flight duties without finding any discrepancies to report to Maintenance or Flight Operations. We did use the CPDLC Service and made the required entry for it. I also do not recall any issues in the maintenance history on this aircraft that would cause me; as the Captain; to instruct greater scrutiny in this area during pre-flight. We did experience the usual light chop and light turbulence en route; but there were no areas greater than that. After landing; I did my usual post flight inspection which involves viewing both left and right sides of the aircraft from the nose area and did not see any leaks or defects to report at that time. I do not know what additional checking I could do as a crewmember to ensure this from occurring again until a cause is determined. However; in the interim; I will be more vigilant about potential loose panels and relay this experience to my crews in the future; so that; they too may use this as a learning experience.




Synopsis: A Captain was informed that a right wing upper access panel; outboard of the spoilers; was missing from their MD-11 aircraft without any discrepancy noted in their pre-flight or post flight walk-around checks.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E S56
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC; TRACON S56
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X IFR departure climb on course already coordinated with Center and pointed out to the Arrival Sector to the north.  There was Aircraft Y holding VFR North of Hill Field not talking to Approach.  Aircraft Y's altitudes varied; and one departure expedited his climb on his own through 170 and told me he had the Aircraft Y on TCAS.  Aircraft X was 10 miles in trail and was a slower climber and I noticed that Aircraft Y was turning south toward Aircraft X so I stopped his climb and began pointing out the traffic.  Once Aircraft X had Aircraft Y making an east bound turn at his one o'clock and about 4 miles in sight I decided to climb the Aircraft X because it appeared Aircraft Y was descending. Then Aircraft Y was north bound and began to climb; once Aircraft Y started to make the west to south bound turn I issued traffic again then stopped Aircraft X at his present altitude.  I issued the traffic and asked if Aircraft X would like a turn out to the west not sure if he still had Aircraft Y in sight.  He requested a turn so I issued a left turn to 290; Aircraft X advised me of a RA and I issued the traffic again.  Then the CA went off on the scope and I saw Aircraft Y make a right turn toward Aircraft X so I issued the traffic alert. Aircraft X responded with a second RA.




Synopsis: S56 controller reports of a situation where he has an aircraft that has two RA's with the same aircraft.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At push; jetway pulled; Ramp Agents informed us of a scratch on the outside of the #2 engine. First Officer looked out the window; but couldn't see anything. Ramp told us they'll have a Ramp Supervisor check it out. The Ramp Supervisor said we were good to go; and I suppose I fell into the 'We're good to go' trap; as I got the impression that this was a small scratch and that it was not unusual at all for him to do an inspection like this. I was also concerned with arriving at our destination on time to avoid the weather that was moving in. After arriving; both the First Officer and I decided to have a look at the scratch. We realized that the scratch was quite long and stretched about two feet along the outer lip of the engine cowl; so I decided to notify Maintenance Control. The Maintenance Controller was (understandably) rather irate and basically chewed me out (not understandable). The aircraft was taken out of service and another aircraft was found for us rather quickly. I accept full responsibility for this event. I allowed myself to be influenced by various factors; instead of pausing and considering my decisions. I will proceed very differently next time; should I be faced with a situation like this again. Some possible contributing factors [is] somewhat long day the previous day; with weather diversion and delays; resulting in a fairly short overnight (approximately 10 hours) and early wake up. I believe that I was also somewhat distracted by the approaching weather at the destination and thereby allowing myself to be lulled into a false sense of compliance with the Ramp Supervisor's inspection.


Second narrative: After the gate pulled back from our aircraft; ramp notified us that there were a few small scrapes on the engine cowling of the #2 engine. Ramp Supervisor subsequently waved us off that it was fine.  I had performed the walk around in the dark at ZZZ and did not notice anything of significance on the engine.  We assumed that they were the typical small scratches seen over the airplane and continued the flight. I went out and looked at the engine in ZZZ1 and found the large scratch. The Captain called Maintenance and the plane was grounded.


Synopsis: Ramp person advised crew of a scratch on the aircraft; pilot had Maintenance check it out; Maintenance said to go. Scratch was larger then flight crew expected and was grounded at destination.
Date: 201901
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We] had a deviation of three miles left of course. We had been on a right SLOP (Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure); we had started encountering wake turbulence from an aircraft 2000 ft above. I decided to return to the track to avoid the wake. I deleted the offset and used heading to return to the track and engaged LNAV again. We were on track and LNAV. I had to go to the Lav. When I returned the First Officer (FO) said we were left of track three miles. I saw we were in HDG mode. I immediately turned to the route and re-engaged LNAV. I know we had verified LNAV after deleting the SLOP I think it's possible that I hit the HDG SELECT button as I exited the seat. Should be more aware of FMA (Flight Mode Annunciator) indications when we change seats and positions.




Synopsis: B767-300ER Captain reported a track deviation in oceanic airspace following a wake encounter. Crew thought they were in LNAV but were actually in HDG SELECT.