elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
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 Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise at FL330 in still air; the Aircrew felt a subtle vibration and slight rumbling noise. We checked the vibration gauges and noted nothing unusual (both around 1.0) with all other engine indications normal. The vibrations sounded almost like the engines were out of sync. The Captain attempted to adjust the thrust levers to attempt to eliminate the vibration. After no change to the vibration and having stabilized the thrust levers back around 85%; in less than two minutes; there was a rumble with a moderate pop accompanied by a brief smell of smoke (while deplaning; a Passenger reported seeing a 5 foot long flame emerge from the exhaust). Subsequently; the engine rolled back to about 50 percent N1. The Captain reduced the thrust to idle and believing the engine was in the process of failing; called for the Engine Failure/Shutdown Checklist. The FO pulled out the QRH and the Aircrew proceeded to accomplish the checklist. We were about 100 miles north of ZZZ and told ATC we would like to divert to ZZZ. We started our descent and got vectored towards ZZZ. We completed the Engine Failure/Shutdown Checklist; calculated the performance for a One Engine Inoperative Landing; the OEI Descent and Landing Checklists; Diversion Checklist; and proceeded to land in ZZZ. We informed Dispatch via ACARS of our situation and diversion decision as well as to expect an overweight landing. The Flight Attendants and Passengers were notified that we had a Maintenance problem and were diverting to ZZZ. The FO informed the Flight Attendants that we would be executing a Single Engine landing and to expect a completely normal landing with no evacuation or other abnormalities expected. Upon landing and stopping on the runway; we had ARFF check the aircraft for any indication of fire; fuel leaks; hot/smoking brakes or anything else out of the ordinary. Upon an all clear from them; we taxied to the gate without any further assistance.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported an engine malfunction in cruise resulting in an inflight shutdown and diversion to a nearby airport.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SLC.Tower, UT
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting training on local east and Aircraft X was on the approach in IMC conditions. I was concerned about their speed as they were faster than a previous arrival and that was a factor with the staggered spacing we needed. It appeared Aircraft X was also descending rapidly and I was going to have the Trainee ask Aircraft X to verify their altitude when he was done asking a question. Before that could be accomplished the MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) activated and I had the Trainee issue a safety alert. Aircraft X then shallowed their descent and landed.In hindsight I should have communicated with Aircraft X earlier about their altitude. We were discussing the speed issue primarily and that back and forth took too long. Both the speed and altitude were of importance.




Synopsis: SLC Tower Controller reported being distracted talking to their trainee and issued a late Minimum Safe Altitude alert to an aircraft on approach.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATC changed landing runways on us twice during the arrive phase of the flight. The final change they gave to us was about 10 miles before REEDR (the fix where we split to go either right or left). They called us and changed the runway and then they said that the frequency for the ILS on the new runway is.When arriving in LAX we will always put 24R or 06L in the primary flight plan (because our gates are on that side of the airport). We will always put 25L or 07R in the secondary position for the same reason. When we are in contact with arrival they give us 25L or 07R and then just before the point on the arrival where traffic splits to go right or left they give us the other runway; but at this time there is nothing in the secondary to switch to and we have to completely reprogram the MCDU for the arrival. This is not a singular occurrence. In the last 10 times I have landed at LAX this has happened 7 times! When landing east they also give us 'proceed to SMO VOR and then outbound from the VOR on a 250 degree radial. This is not the time to be completely changing the flight plan.Contact LAX arrival and review the tape to determine what is necessitating this last minute change during arrival procedures. Being at 9000 ft in IMC about to make a critical turn is not the time to be reprogramming the MCDU.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported SCT TRACON controllers often make multiple runway assignment changes during the approach; greatly increasing pilot workload.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On final approach [a] large bird dove at the aircraft and struck the nose gear. The altitude was approximately 2;000 feet MSL. The air brake horn sounded [and] both hydraulic low pressure warning lights illuminated. A go-around was initiated. Departure Control was contacted. Emergency declared. All appropriate normal and emergency checklists were completed. The emergency equipment met the aircraft after it stopped on the runway; about 6;000 feet from approach end. The landing gear was pinned and the aircraft was towed off the runway and to the hangar.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: HS-125-800XPC flight crew reported loss of hydraulics after a bird struck their aircraft in the nose gear area during approach.
Date: 201510
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am severely allergic to the lemongrass packet that is used for the hot towels. There must have been some residue in the air because when I went to the front of the plane to tell the purser that I had briefed the exits; I began breaking out in hives. I now have to carry an EpiPen because my reactions have continued to grow worse with each exposure. I have met flight attendants that use any extra hot towels to wipe down galley surfaces; some place packets in cups of water to scent the bathroom or they pour it into coffee pots and 'brew' hot water to then pour over the hot towels - thus contaminating our work areas further. I am not the only person allergic to this stuff. We will one day give it to an unsuspecting passenger who will have a severe reaction. Please take this off our airplanes. It will be safer for those of us with allergies to it.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported an allergic reaction to the lemongrass packets used on the aircraft.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In cruise flight did not position fuel petcock properly. Landed with 11 gallons of fuel in wing tank. Plane was restarted and flown back to the airport.




Synopsis: A Piper Cub pilot; thinking he was out of gas; landed and determined there were still 11 gallons aboard in a wing tank.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OGG.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Rain; 2.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C OGG
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; MEL; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I checked the weather before departure and it was 600 overcast and 10 miles at OGG with a few rain showers in between. The general weather pattern for the morning was improving east to west and was already improving at OGG. I departed VFR for the 25 minute flight to OGG. When I was 2/3 of the way across the channel the visibility dropped a little so I headed towards the better visibility. I was following the west shoreline southbound between 1;000-2;000 FT to stay VFR. It got to the point I could not stay VFR so I turned around and tried to go around the North shore. I am checked out to be single pilot IFR w/autopilot in leu of SIC however; the autopilot was MEL'd INOP. I flew northbound and listened to the OGG ATIS. It reported 2.5 mile visibility with a 2;900 foot ceiling. I called Approach around Nakalele and told them I would hold a while to see if the field went back to VFR. I was holding for a few turns and the visibility was getting worse where I was and where I came from had been closed in with IMC weather; too. I picked up an IFR clearance and landed safely in OGG. I believed this was the safest option since the weather had deteriorated around me; and I could not turn back to MKK or I would be in IMC as well.The cause of the problem was weather moving in and an MEL'd autopilot. The solution would have been to have an SIC on board; or a working autopilot.




Synopsis: A C-208 instrument rated pilot got trapped by unexpected weather and an autopilot deferred inoperative enroute to OGG. In technical violation of company policy which required either an SIC or an autopilot; he obtained an IFR clearance to complete the flight.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VVTS.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center VVTS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Enroute to RCTP FL270 per the flight plan 72 miles west of ALDAS on M765. VVTS asked us to climb to FL310. We expressed our desire to maintain FL270 per our flight plan and were denied. In no uncertain terms we were told to climb and maintain FL310; we complied. We then sent a message to company with new altitude. We were aware of the fly safe NOTAM but had to comply with the clearance issued.I don't believe we could have done a thing about the issue we were forced to comply with the issued clearance.File flight plan around VVTS airspace.




Synopsis: Reporter was assigned new altitude which they didn't want; and ATC assigned higher altitude anyway.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Other Cargo Freight
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Other Cargo/freight
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 5 minutes after entering airspace we had an intermittent level 1 FIRE DET FAIL 1 illuminate. After referencing the QRH we saw the number 1 fuel switch light illuminate momentarily. 5 to 10 seconds later the number 1 Fire warning alert sounded with corresponding lights in the fuel switch; fire handle and glare shield. We secured number 1 engine In Accordance With (IAW) QRH procedures and requested a turn to departure field with a descent to FL 180. After switching frequencies to control we coordinated a fuel dump of approximately 100;000 lbs. of fuel with possible holding. We secured the fuel jettison after 1/2 turn in holding and obtained vectors to the ILS. Approach and landing during night VMC were uneventful. We had the aircraft inspected by Fire [and] Rescue and maintenance after landing and before continuing to park.  International Relief Officer (IRO) was actively involved in all aspects of the event and aided situational awareness considerably. After landing all crew members commented that the event was 'Just like a sim ride'; kudos to the training center for providing valuable knowledge and realistic training. This aircraft had a history of number 1 Engine fire detection issues. I realize that it is not always possible to fix every issue before a flight and the resolution to this problem is still unknown. This issue however cost the company a significant amount of money in dumped fuel; man hours and lost revenue. We have 160;000 lbs of our customer's goods on the ground instead of on the truck for delivery. I am concerned that repeat aircraft discrepancies are signed off as item cleared; or could not duplicate without thorough troubleshooting.


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


Synopsis: Wide body aircraft flight crew experienced a malfunction in the Number 1 Engine Fire Warning System. The engine was secured and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On an instructional flight practicing ILS approaches; the instructor and flight student (commercial pilot) were engaged in managing and learning autopilot technology. At various times; both the PF (Pilot Flying) and the instructor were managing the radios; monitoring the AWOS and the CTAF. The PF was wearing a view-limiting device. The instructor was briefing the PF on the procedure for turning off the autopilot and landing from simulated minimums on the approach.The instructional flight was landing straight in from the ILS approach. It heard no calls on the CTAF frequency from the previously landing jet; which had apparently landed [opposite] runway. The instructional flight made at least one call inside the FAF on the ILS.When the instructor looked up at the runway; he noticed a Citation rolling out on the opposite runway. Evasive action in the form of a go around was initiated; but the time lag between the instructor's call for a go around and the pilot's performance of the go-around caused a less-than-normal separation as the landing aircraft passed overhead and offset from the Citation exiting the runway.The situation was made more likely by taxiway work that influenced the choice of landing and departing runway; by joint operation of the landing aircraft radios; which may have resulted in a failure to hear CTAF radio calls; and by concentration on instruction. The go-around was successful and maintained safe VFR separation from the two aircraft; but the go around should have been initiated earlier and better radio communication would have avoided a conflict on opposing runways.




Synopsis: General aviation flight instructor reported a go-around maneuver from an instrument approach at a non-towered airport due to opposite direction landing traffic.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Pilot report that his right inboard brake was not actuating. Supervisor in Charge; Name; decided to change the right inboard brake. Assignment was given to Name 1. I; Name 2 was behind the desk that day printing all necessary paper work; Name 1 calls for assistance due to having brake jack issues. Name 3 and myself arrived at Aircraft X to help Name 1. Name 3 was in the cockpit monitoring hydraulic system and brake temp. I assisted Name 1 with lifting and changing the right inboard brake only due to the brake jack having issues and the weight of brake. Name 1 told me he was good from there and he will take care of the rest such as brake fittings; brake lines and brake temp sensor. I received a call from my Supervisor; also I sent pictures of what happened. After spending nearly an entire year without touching an aircraft due to the pandemic it is a possibility that Name 1 might of had a relapse reading the job card.  After hearing about the incident from the Supervisor I was upset; frustrated that having done the job in the past; this could have happened. But I was more relief to know that problem was caught and rectified before something serious happened that could have put our customers; crew and aircraft in jeopardy. To read and ask as much question as needed in order to perform our duties in compliance with company and FAA policies.




Synopsis: Technician reported a coworker struggled with a main wheel brake change and made errors during installation; even with help; possible due to lingering COVID issues.