elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: 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 C RSW
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading 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 Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were flying the TYNEE ONE RNAV arrival with many weather deviations and weather avoidance vectors.  Once clear of weather;  ATC cleared us direct to ODERY; which we heard as RODDE.  ATC advised us that we were south of course and issued a vector to join final for Runway 24.Flew a visual approach and landed uneventfully.The fix names ODERY and RODDE are too similar sounding over the radio/cockpit noise.  Clearences to these fixes either need to be phonetically spelled out or the names changed to something less similar sounding.




Synopsis: An air carrier crew flying the RSW TYNEE ONE RNAV were cleared direct ODERY but heard RODDE; 5 NM from ODERY because they were phonetically similar on the radio.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: 4
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on approach to TEB Runway 19; we had a near miss with a UAV drone while flying the ILS; around 2.5 miles from the runway and 1;000 FT MSL. I was in the right seat as pilot not flying; and saw the drone pass under our right wing approximately 50 FT below. It was a round; silver; quadcopter type and was about 3-4 feet in diameter. It did not allow time to take evasive action. I reported the event to TEB Tower; and spoke with the Tower after landing by telephone to provide more information.




Synopsis: Medium size corporate aircraft Captain reports a NMAC with a drone at a 1;000 FT during approach to Runway 19 at TEB. No evasive action is taken but the Tower is informed.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff. The captain aligned the aircraft with the runway and advanced the throttles. Once stable he TOGA the throttles to set flex power. As the aircraft power was applied and the aircraft started moving; it immediately veered to the right. The captain was unable to correct with his rudder pedals and realized he had a nosewheel steering problem. He immediately rejected the takeoff. We notified ATC and accomplished any applicable checklists. He was able to regain steering through the steering lever and we taxied clear of the runway. We were able to return to our gate uneventfully.The problem was caused by a malfunction in the nose wheel steering system.


Second narrative: The aircraft veered right. I applied full rudder while checking the symmetry of the engines. The engines were symmetric and the rudder had no effect; so we rejected at approximately 40 kts. We taxied off the runway when we determined that the tiller steering worked. On taxi in; we felt a catch in the nosewheel steering and felt vibrations as if there was something blocking free movement.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported a rejected takeoff due to a malfunctioning nosewheel steering system that could not stop the aircraft from veering to the right.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We bought a plane out of state that needed a condition inspection (annual for experimental airplane). A local A&P was hired to do the inspection. I was told the inspection was completed; and the A&P was going to put the logbook entry in the mail. I then began flying the plane home. I didn't think much about not having the logbook entries in hand. Halfway back; the engine failed; and I was forced to make a sudden landing. I then began thinking about the logbook; knowing I might need to submit copies to the FAA. Realizing I didn't have a copy of the entry in hand; I called the A&P; who apparently hasn't mailed the entry yet. I then realized I had taken off in an airplane that wasn't legal.  Although the inspection had been performed; I didn't have the required paperwork to takeoff legally. I should have made sure I received the logbook entries before takeoff.




Synopsis: Pilot reported flying aircraft without proper maintenance inspection documentation.
Date: 202011
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Enroute to a patient pickup; I and the crew were notified that the patient was potentially COVID-positive.  Upon acceptance of the patient; I requested a protective suit from the ground ambulance crew.  At that point I became more concerned with protecting myself from infection and distracted from performing a complete and accurate pre-flight walkaround.  Due to this I missed the fact that the chocks were still installed and left them at the helipad at the pickup site.When unusual factors or outside distraction interfere with routine duties; ensure that pilots are aware (including me) that proper procedures and checklists are doublechecked before taking flight.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported being distracted during preflight due to concern about avoiding COVID-19 and left the chocks at the departure heliport.
Date: 201908
Location: LOT.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cruise altitude 8000 ft. from ZZZ to ZZZ1. Given crossing clearance of 4000 ft. 20 NM before ZZZ1. During 16 minute descent oil pressure suddenly dropped from 59 PSI to 40 PSI and oil temperature rose 33 degrees. I advised ATC and asked for vectors to closest airport ZZZ1 which I rejected in favor of KLOT for a more favorable runway. During this event I was given additional altitude clearances that I did not comply with because I wanted to conserve a higher altitude in case of catastrophic engine failure. I was in communication and radar contact with ATC during the entire event and am grateful for their assistance.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that oil pressure dropped to 40 PSI and oil temp rose 33 degrees; causing a diversion.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MFE.Tower, TX
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on Runway 13 at MFE; we exited the runway to the left to taxi to the gate. During the turn from the runway the nose wheel steering failed with the nose wheel stuck full left deflection. The Captain stopped the aircraft before any landing gear exited the paved surface.  We attempted to reset the nose wheel steering by turning it off and back on; but it remained inoperative. The Control Tower cleared a twin engine light aircraft for takeoff while we were attempting to troubleshoot the problem; and I queried the Tower to make sure we were clear of the runway hold short line since we could not see it behind us.  The tower said that we were clear and we could remain at our location until a tug arrived to tow us in to the gate.  As we were waiting for the tug the tower cleared a business jet to land on Runway 13.  As a precaution I looked as far back as I could and saw that it was apparent our tail was still over the hold short line for the runway. In order to try to get us clear of the active runway the Captain and I elected to attempt to pull the nose wheel steering circuit breaker and reset it to see if we could straighten the nose wheel and taxi so the tail was clear of the hold short line.  The steering remained inoperative; however; so I informed the Tower that we were; in fact; not clear and that the landing traffic would have to be capable of landing and holding short of our taxiway.  The tug eventually arrived and towed the aircraft to the gate.Cause of the nose wheel steering failure is unknown. Contract maintenance was called out and was able to reset the system at the gate.The danger was the miscommunication between us and the Tower as to whether we were clear of the active runway; and the subsequent takeoff and landing clearances being issued.  We sent a message to dispatch via ACARS from the taxiway to which the response was to tell us to call maintenance from the gate.  It would have helped if maintenance could have sent a message via ACARS describing the steps to reset the nose wheel steering; or if we could perform the procedure with maintenance on the cell phone from the taxiway.  This would have sped up the process of getting clear of the active runway.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer (FO) reported they were unable to continue taxi after landing when the nosewheel steering failed. ATC continued operations to the runway even though they were not clear of the runway.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wing Access Panel
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was notified by the Duty Officer (via email) that an aircraft I flew had a missing panel from the skin of the aircraft (upper wing) found during post flight. The preflight walk around was completed normally. The ramp was well lit and I had a good quality flashlight. All normal preflight and in flight checklists were completed in accordance with the Flight Manual. All phases of flight were normal with only light chop/light turbulence en route. Descent; approach and landing were also normal. I'm guessing this panel departed the aircraft somewhere en route. I normally look at the top of the wing from the top of the entry stairs. However; they are only on one side of the aircraft. I wasn't told which wing the panel was off of; but as the wing's upper surface is very hard to see from the ground; outside of an elevated platform on both sides of the aircraft; I don't think it's feasible for crew members to access the top of the wing. My best guess is the panel departed the aircraft somewhere in flight and was properly discovered on post flight by Maintenance.




Synopsis: An MD11 First Officer is informed after the fact that an upper wing panel on an aircraft he flew was found missing on post flight.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: Tower IAD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the ILS 19C IAD; inside the FAF (FEMKO); I experienced wind shear which brought me below the glide slope enough for Tower to provide a low altitude alert (LAA). I corrected to glide slope; but then experienced wind shear again; and received a second LAA. I corrected and then broke out of IMC to land the aircraft. The wind shear was unexpected as it was not forecast or reported and the flight up to that point was fairly calm. To prevent a reoccurrence I could have gone missed at the first wind shear indication; instead of flying through it. By resetting the approach from the beginning knowing wind shear existed instead of continuing it; I could have either avoided it on a subsequent approach and/or been better prepared to handle it the second time around. If it persisted I could have flown another approach at IAD or gone to an alternate airport.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported a low altitude alert on final; a wind shear; and then a second low altitude alert and safely landed the aircraft.
Date: 201601
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Many of the new FOs I fly with are under the mistaken impression that they must brief the engine inoperative go-around procedure on every leg where there is an engine failure on takeoff procedure (T-procedure). They tell me they were taught this in 737 school at the training center.This is incorrect. The Flight Operations Manual (FOM) is very clear; 'Prior to an actual engine inoperative approach or when required by 10-7 page instructions; review obstacles and terrain in the missed approach path and brief the appropriate go-around procedure'; In other words; unless you are doing an actual engine inoperative approach; there is no need to brief the engine inoperative go-around.In fact; one could argue that it's not even safe to do so. The FOM is very clear that we are only allowed to brief one approach at a time. Similarly; we should only be briefing one go-around at a time. Briefing two different go-around procedures for one approach will likely result in neither one of them being done correctly.I'm told that it used to be a [merger partner] requirement to brief the engine inoperative go-around procedure even when flying an all-engine approach. I don't know if this is true; but maybe it explains why the 737 instructors are still teaching this incorrectly. Regardless of the reason; they need to stop. We do not brief the engine inoperative go-around unless we're flying an actual engine inoperative approach.If this used to be a [merger partner] requirement; there are probably a lot of other pilots doing this incorrectly as well; which could be confusing to new FOs. Perhaps a pilot bulletin highlighting the FOM language and correct procedure is in order.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that new First Officers the he flies with are under the mistaken impression that they must brief the engine inoperative go-around procedure for every approach to an airport with a special engine out missed approach procedure.
Date: 202112
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had SOURCE OFF light on the right side came on just before top of descent. We followed the checklist procedure and were not able to get power back to the bus.Wanted to add some more information to the report.When running the check list procedure we attempted to put the gen back on the bus [and] the autopilot kicked off; the next step called for the APU. As soon as we put the APU gen on; the entire overhead panel back lighting went dark and could not tell if the APU was on the bus. The test light switch for the overhead lights functioned but once back in normal position it was dark. Had to turn on the bright overhead lights for the remainder of the flight. At about that time we lost flight directors; VNAV and LNAV; copilots PFD; ND and FMC; lost power to one fuel pump in the left tank and one also in the right; lost auto throttle; auto trim had to use manual trimming and the temperature in the forward cabin including the cockpit got extremely hot and uncontrollable. When configuring flaps for landing the forward flap position indicator was inoperative. After landing we can hear a horn in the av compartment associated with a low battery.Earlier on in the flight we had lost VHF 1 and were using VHF 2 for ATC. Sent a message to Dispatch to call me and to also get Maintenance Control on the call. We attempted to communicate on VHF 1 but it was impossible. Requested priority handling and had the trucks standing by and landed safely.All four flight attendants were brand new three of them on their first trip they did very well.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a SOURCE OFF light illuminated during cruise. When running the checklists; the flight crew attempted a start of the APU; subsequently lost many systems and indications; and elected to make a precautionary landing.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: MEL; Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After a cabin deferral item was listed in the maintenance logbook 'FA (Flight Attendant) Crew Panel';  I attempted to locate the equipment in the operating manuals. After a thorough search; I realized that our operating manuals have no cabin safety items listed or major cabin components. We have water shutoff valves; IFE (Inflight Entertainment) equipment; ovens; and many more items that are crucial safety items for flight crews. This needs to be added to the operating manuals immediately. Cabin safety items and equipment need to be in the operating manuals immediately.




Synopsis: A330 Captain reported a cabin item from the FA Crew Panel was deferred and realized the cabin items were not listed in the operations manual.