elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Reverser
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My gate partner for the day; Mechanic X and I were assigned to a DC-10 aircraft #2 Engine Thrust Reverser. It was currently locked-out and deferred. We opened the 'patio'; [the] cowls and put the tail stand in place. During our troubleshooting; we found the right side Power Opening Flexshaft sheared. I ordered new hardware to replace some stripped screws and an actuator as a precaution if the threads in it were damaged. Due to time constraints and needed hardware; we knew the [maintenance] task could not be completed and updated the maintenance computer to reflect the condition of the item. The teleflex cable was in position with the bolts tightened and safetied at the drive unit and routed over to the actuator. I knew that the reverser rigging was an RII item; but I did not review the RII Card regarding the teleflex cable. I can only say that in my head; I knew thrust reverser rigging was an RII item and that since I was not performing any rigging; I did not identify the task as an RII. I should have reviewed the [RII] Card anyway. I believe that if RII tasks were included in the Maintenance Manual (M/M); missed RII items could be avoided. In my military days; the Technical Publications (Tech Pubs) insisted these types of inspections be right in the Maintenance Manual. I know that the [RII] Card items change; but if they are that important; maybe the proper place for them is in the Maintenance Manual (M/M) to begin with. That certainly doesn't relieve me of any personal responsibility for not identifying the teleflex cable installation as an RII Task; but identifying RII Tasks in the Maintenance Manual would help. [Had to] troubleshoot and repair # 2 Engine Thrust Reverser that was on deferral.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports not having an RII Inspection accomplished after replacing a sheared teleflex cable for the #2 Engine right reverser half on a DC-10 aircraft.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Indications
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on the VOR/DME-A approach; the engine power indication dropped to zero percent for a few seconds before returning to 75%. All other engine instrument indications were normal. Instructor contacted ATC and returned to [departure airport] via the Arrival. No further engine indication abnormalities occurred during return flight.




Synopsis: A flight instructor operating a Cirrus SR20 reported a momentary loss of engine power indication.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
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 - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Level at FL360; I heard a loud bang sound and felt a strong jolt in my feet. While looking to troubleshoot the issue; the Captain noticed my right side window was shattering. I looked over in time to see the cracking continuing. The Captain directed me to the Window Shattered QRH. I pulled the paper CRJ 700 QRH from the center console location and proceeded to follow it. On examination of of the window; we noted a new cold airflow from the right forward upper portion of the shattered window and cabin rate increasing. We could not achieve the required PSID (Per Square Inches Differential) in our initial or subsequent descent before the Cabin ALT caution and subsequent warning sounded. The Captain directed we don oxygen masks and [advised ATC] due to ATC not wanting us to descend further. At a lower altitude; around 10;000 feet; I switched to the QRH Manual Pressurization Control Procedure to attempt to regain control of cabin pressurization. At this point pressurization was stable and we coordinated removing our oxygen masks. The Captain checked with our flight attendants for any injuries or medical needs; of which there were none. He advised Dispatch of our diversion to ZZZ. We reviewed our steps; continued the QRH and descended to 8;000 feet. The subsequent approach; landing; and gate parking were uneventful.




Synopsis: CRJ 700 First Officer reported his side window shattered at 36;000 feet; requiring an immediate descent and diversion to a precautionary landing.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were being vectored directly to the final approach fix (FAF) from the west for a visual approach to Runway 35. We were very close to the FAF when we were cleared for the visual approach. It required about 120 degree turn to final. The aircraft was in the landing configuration as we started our descent from 2;400 feet abeam the FAF on the glideslope while turning final. Shortly after starting the descent we received one EGPWS 'Caution Obstacle' Alert. As per the AOM; I changed the flight path and did not receive any additional Alerts. The approach was continued to a normal landing meeting ALL FOM Stabilized Approach Criteria. The FOM required EGPWS Event Report.    Fatigue: It was early AM and I did feel tired at this duty period.


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


Synopsis: A B767-300 Captain reported fatigue while descending on a visual approach. The EGPWS momentarily alerted 'CAUTION OBSTACLE' so the descent was shallowed; followed by a stabilized approach.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb-out the Captain's airspeed and altimeter failed along with an oral warning. Performed QRC and then QRH procedures for Unreliable Airspeed. Climbed above IMC conditions and proceeded to nearest suitable VMC airport. During descent the EEC (Electronic Engine Controller) Alt annunciators illuminated when Recal selected. [Coordinated with ATC] and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported failure of airspeed and altimeter instruments on climbout.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a marginal weather ILS approach into KXXX; as Captain I was Pilot Monitoring at the time. The First Officer (FO) was flying and with very little line experience. He had only flown a handful of times in the last 4-5 months. While being vectored for the approach he became fixated on the automation and got a little behind the aircraft. Seeing this happen I became focused on his actions and lost sight of the greater picture. While I was focused on making sure the aircraft was in a proper position to land (configured and on approach) I failed to remember that Approach control had advised me to contact tower while crossing the final approach fix. I did not realize I had done this until clearing the runway and noticing that the nose landing light was still in the off position (typical cue for identifying 'cleared to land'). I then swapped frequencies and told the FO to contact tower. Tower then gave us a taxi clearance to the gate without mentioning our failure to get a landing clearance.




Synopsis: The Captain of a regional jet reported failing to call the control tower for a landing clearance. He cited several cockpit distractions while on final approach for not initiating a radio call to the tower prior to landing.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared via SKYLINE 7 Departure. During LEGS review; we noticed that PORTE and OSI fixes didn't populate on the LEGS page though they are on the chart. The textual description for Runway 30 departures no longer lists those fixes; but it does for 28L/R and other similar SIDS. We queried ATC on Clearance Delivery and they said that the PORTE and OSI fixes should be included in the SID from Runway 30. Either the database; Jeppesen Plate; or ATC is wrong. Please look into it. We manually entered the fixes and no issues ensued with ATC on departure as we were vectored to WAGES.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported FMC route data was missing two fixes on their assigned departure SKYL8 from OAK.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I have had my Instrument rating a long time; I usually remain current; but have very little actual IMC and time in the system. I do however; get regular training in order to 'retain' my skills. Today I hired a reputable and experienced CFII for recurrent training. Ceilings ranging 2;500 ft to 4;200 ft in most of the area. We picked ZZZ in order to find time in the clouds although the approach would be in VMC under simulated conditions. I filed a TEC (Tower En Route Control) route.The controller was busy and there was regular; light and choppy turbulence. I had joined the final and my descent was delayed briefly for traffic. When cleared for the ILS Rwy 9 approach I thought; mistakenly; that I was beyond the FAF and began a rapid; but stabilized descent. I went right through my 2;500 ft altitude to the FAF and kept descending until my instructor brought my mistake to my attention. The tower then reported the altitude alert.This was a humbling experience. I have never blown an approach so badly; but it did make an impressive learning experience. This would have been a CFIT had I been alone and in IMC. My three situational awareness questions; where am I; what am I doing and what is next had not been answered. I know how to read the CDI; I can't explain why I thought I was too high. If I had only maintained my altitude until I confirmed my location the worst I would have been was too high on the approach and a go-around or missed. We will be scheduling more practice.Since we had filed an IFR TEC this was a violation. Although my instructor turned it into a dramatic learning experience; I wish he had not allowed me to descend that low; 1700 ft.




Synopsis: Instructor reported their training flight overshot published altitude during an ILS approach.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: It was towards the end of my shift. I had aircraft X descending to 24;000 feet out of 26;000 feet. They were flight planned on the ZELKA1 STAR. The first altitude restriction is the second fix on the arrival; TERIA; which is at or above 24;000 feet. After clearing them to descend via; I continued my scan; and when I got back to them; they had already gone through 23;000 feet violating Sector 22. I told them to maintain FL220 and called Sector 22 with a point out. They luckily had no traffic. This is now the 4th or 5th time I have had problems with corporate or business type jets and or pilots having an issue properly descending via on the ZELKA STAR going through the first altitude which clearly states that FL240 is an at or above altitude.I believe somehow getting mandatory briefings for business/corporate jet pilots about descend via. Or find out why this specific STAR has had so many problems. Maybe there is a system interface issue with certain aircraft on this descend via STAR.




Synopsis: A Controller reported observing an aircraft descend below its assigned crossing altitude and into an underlying sector.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 3
Light: Night
Aircraft: Stratotanker 135
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Refueling
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X was the tanker conducting Air Refuel Training with Aircraft Y; the receiver. Both aircraft encountered light to moderate turbulence at block altitudes of FL250-FL270 and was unable to attempt air refueling. Aircraft X requested a climb for the formation to the block altitudes FL260-FL290 and was cleared by Center to maintain the blocks FL260-FL290. Once established at FL290; both airplanes encountered light chop and Aircraft Y requested to move into the contact position to simulate receiving fuel. Aircraft X approved the request and Aircraft Y made contact.Fifteen seconds after Aircraft Y made contact; Aircraft X went into several porpoising pitch oscillations of +/- 150 feet; the autopilot on Aircraft X inadvertently disconnected; causing the pilot flying on Aircraft X to call for an emergency 'breakaway.' While Aircraft Y dropped behind Aircraft X; the Pilot Flying Aircraft X experienced full nose up pitch; resulting in an uncontrolled climb of 600 feet above the cleared top of the altitude block. Once the aircraft was under control; Aircraft X descended back to FL290; was unable to reconnect the autopilot and continued the mission with autopilot off.The combination of the turbulence; excessive closure; and the receiver's slow descent during the breakaway contributed to the altitude deviation. The crew on Aircraft X was able to reduce the excessive pitch and determined the autopilot would no longer couple and could not be used to conduct air refueling training.Chain of events (human performance considerations)- How the problem arose- Contributing factors - How it was discovered- Corrective actions - Perceptions; judgements; decisions- Factors affecting the quality of human performance - Actions or inactions




Synopsis: KC-135 Pilot reported while attempting to refuel another aircraft; turbulence made their aircraft go into a full nose-up pitch after an emergency breakaway; resulting in an altitude block deviation.
Date: 202006
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was inbound to ZZZ to pick up a part for an aircraft that was part of our fleet. I was intending to use the grass strip (RWY XX) to get some grass landing practice in. The aircraft in the pattern were using Runway 12; so I had to be extra careful to sequence myself into the pattern to not cause a collision hazard. As I was turning final approach; I located the 'threshold markers' and positioned myself for a landing. I glanced at Runway 12 to make sure no one was coming in on that runway; at the same time however; I veered to the left of my intended approach path. When I looked up; I saw the grass in front of me and thought that I was still in line with the runway; however; I was not and actually I was to the left of the runway and ended up landing in a dirt/grass area. I only noticed that I landed off the runway after I saw a cloud of dust in trail of my aircraft. Nothing was damaged on the ground or the plane.  Bottom line; I should have went around and there is no other way to put it. If I was not 100% sure between the multicolored landing area that I was lined up for the runway; I should have went around. There is no room for uncertainty on landing.




Synopsis: Pilot flying PA28 aircraft veered off flight path on approach and landed off runway.