elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pressurization Outflow Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Planning our flight we noticed that the aft outflow valve was deferred inoperative. It was a fairly lengthy MEL and one of the notes was that the aft outflow valve was locked in the 7% open position. After discussion and a review of the Ditching and Emergency Evacuation checklists we decided to refuse the aircraft for safety reasons.The Ditching Checklist requires the crew to manually close both outflow valves (closing holes below the waterline). The Emergency Evacuation Checklist requires the crew to manually open both outflow valves in order to depressurize the aircraft. Obviously; with the aft outflow valve locked in the 7% open position; neither of these checklists could be correctly completed. These checklists are not optional if you end up in either of these situations. The safety implications should be very obvious. It is very concerning to me that we have an MEL that allows an aircraft to be dispatched knowing that we can't complete two emergency checklists if needed. Crews should not be placed in this position.Equally disturbing is the fact that after these facts were brought to the attention of the company their response was not to remove the aircraft from service but to find a crew willing to accept this condition. The ultimate irony is that our company has been stressing the dangers of intentional non-compliance recently. Apparently this only applies when it's convenient and won't cause an operational disruption. Dispatching an aircraft after being informed of the inability to perform two emergency checklists is the definition of willful non-compliance.In decades of flying for this company I have NEVER taken a checkride that I was not required to successfully complete an evacuation /evacuation checklist. It seems to me the safety implications in this situation are obvious as is the total disregard for them by our management.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative offers no additional information]


Synopsis: B777 First Officer and Flight Attendant reported an inoperative outflow valve which prompted the Captain to refuse the aircraft.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying from ZZZ to IAH we planned to descend via the Mascot 4 arrival to Runway 27. We were switched to the DRLLR 5 arrival. Later we were then given Runway 26R so we set up for the ILS 26R. Switched again to RNAV Y 26R; so we reloaded and confirmed the box was correct. Given direct SKLER 6;000 feet @ 210 kts. Once we got to 6;000 cleared RNAV 26R after SKLER. Passed over SKLER and proceeded to next point DRKAR. For some reason the aircraft didn't turn and the FMC said vectors then DRKAR. Captain immediately clicked off autopilot and then ATC gave us a right turn to fly visual 26R. Gave another turn to intercept the LOC and then cleared us visual Runway 26R. The rest of the approach and landing was uneventful. We don't know how the fix sequence changed during the approach. After debriefing; Captain called and they said some aircraft have been having problems with this approach and trying to figure out why. They did not have a problem with us just wanted more information to figure out this ongoing problem.


Second narrative: We were cleared the RNAV Y Runway 26R at IAH at the last minute. This was the third runway or approach change that we received. We quickly loaded it; briefed it; set it up and activated it. Passing DRKAR we were surprised when the aircraft did not make the required right turn onto the arc. We immediately started to manually make the turn however Houston approach control also immediately saw the problem and started giving us vectors for the visual approach to 26R. Upon landing we were given an ATC phone number to call.  At the gate we called the phone number and spoke with Mr. X. He made it clear from the beginning that they were not filing a report against us; but said that he did have some questions for us. He told us that they had been talking about why some aircraft are rarely able to successfully able to fly this approach and wanted our opinion.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported aircraft was not turning at DRKAR while on the RNAV Y 26R arrival to IAH airport.  ATC advised the flight crew of problems with some aircraft not turning correctly at that fix.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Radar Controller working combined sectors. Aircraft X was climbing out westbound; and contacted us for further climb. I am not 100% sure if I issued a climb on initial contact to 26;000 feet. or not. It is possible that it fell through the cracks; as I was busy at the time. Aircraft X called to ask if there was traffic at their 12'oclock; at which time I noticed a data tag in the adjacent TRACON's airspace at 23;000 feet.; the same altitude as Aircraft X. Without coordination; I instructed Aircraft X to immediately turn to a 180 heading and expedite a climb to 26;000 feet. There was absolutely a Loss (of Separation) and probably a NMAC. My d-side (Assist) called the TRACON to advise them that we had turned Aircraft X. I am not sure with whom the fault lies; as I cannot be 100% sure that I issued a climb on initial contact; and I am not sure how long Aircraft X was level at 23;000 feet. The LOSS occurred in TRACON airspace. This partially stems from the sector being overloaded with weather and traffic; and partially from controller error (assuming the climb was not issued). I feel that more attention needs to be given to sectors that are experiencing high volume and weather; and better staffing procedures should be implemented. It is a known issue that the TSD (Traffic Situation Display) numbers do not function correctly at this sector; and thus it does not receive the management and Traffic M(Management) Unit support that it often deserves.




Synopsis: ZJX Center Controller reported they may have caused a loss of separation and an NMAC in the adjacent TRACON airspace.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We departed for ZZZ. Enroute; dispatch notified us that we had lost the alternate to weather. I sent a message to confirm that we had a new alternate and were good to continue. Dispatch confirmed ZZZ1 was our new alternate and that we had the numbers to continue. When we reached ZZZ we shot the ILS to a missed. ATC vectored us back around for a second approach. The second ILS ended in a missed approach. We requested and were given direct ZZZ1. Enroute to the alternate the fuel levels went into the amber range. We continued and when we were in contact with ZZZ1 approach control the fuel went into the red range. Once the fuel reached the red range we [advised ATC]. A few minutes later we landed in ZZZ1. The flight plan was based on Weather that did not show visibility less than 6 miles and ceiling below 700 ft. That day the weather went to 0/0.




Synopsis: EMB175 Captain reported diverting to the alternate airport after two missed approaches at the planned destination.
Date: 201312
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I looked down and was in IFR lost positive control. Recovered and was able to regain level flight but saw I had busted airspace after exiting the clouds.




Synopsis: AA5 pilot reports entering Class C airspace without a clearance after entering IMC inadvertently and losing control.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent on the arrival; left spoiler stuck in the stowed position resulting in a significant right rolling moment. I immediately stowed the spoilers and determined that they were probably frozen (heavy rain and icing earlier in the flight during departure.) This is not a rare event but still requires some steps. We immediately notified Center that we were requesting relief on the STAR from the airspeed constraints and would be unable to make the next STAR altitude constraint because our spoilers were unavailable. I did not declare an emergency because ATC said that there was no problem with that 'do the best you can with the altitude' and airspeed restrictions were removed. The rest of the descent was uneventful with regard to the spoiler system and they thawed out around 6;000-8;000 feet and were usable normally for landing. We never declared an emergency nor requested traffic priority and the requests and notifications we made to ATC were acknowledged quickly and they were a great help. I believe that water intrusion caused ice to form on the left set of spoilers keeping them stuck in the stowed position until we descended in to a warmer air mass. While this is not a normal occurrence it isn't extremely rare either (when encountering a significant precipitation event during climbout and then climbing to cold air) - probably 4-5 times over my aircraft 12+years. I'm not sure that this can be prevented per say - because you aren't aware of when the ice formation actually happens; so using a spoiler extension/retraction procedure following a precipitation encounter when freezing air mass is involved may not solve the problem.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported the left spoiler became stuck in the stowed position during descent.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain; Turbulence; Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C GRR
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft in normal descent cleared to 7;000 feet; upon reaching; asked for lower. No answer. Troubleshot radios; no comm with Center. Aircraft was 22 miles out and we needed to descend to make the approach. Weather precluded operations north of the field. The Tower was closed. We squawked 7600 and complied with lost comm procedures. We continued to the IAF; descended to 3;000 feet; switched to CTAF and made normal radio calls. At approximately two miles out on the ILS; Tower queried us although they were not open for another five minutes and said that Center's radio was inoperative and that they could hear us and asked if we were squawking 7600. We continued the approach to landing.I asked Tower if there were any problems with what we did and they said that Center told him that we did exactly what he expected.




Synopsis: Flight crew of a Large Transport aircraft lost communications with Center while in descent for landing at a field with a closed Tower. Crew complied with lost comm procedures; flew the filed approach; and landed.
Date: 201510
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was in the bunk asleep while this was building up to a divert. When I was woken up and made aware of the situation; we collectively; as a crew decided; along with input from dispatch; to divert back to [departure airport]. Evidently; there was a fuel score discrepancy of 6K from the flight plan;early in the flight; with no other mitigating circumstances. Initially a fuel imbalance checklist was accomplished. I think between tanks 1 and 4. This eventually lead to the fuel leak checklist. At any rate; we diverted to the departure airport. We had to jettison fuel to land under max landing weight. During the jettison; an imbalance occurred. The jettison was stopped to resolve the imbalance; as the checklist gave no guidance for an imbalance during jettison operations. We did not want to go into no man's land trying to balance during jettison operations; with no checklist guidance. I believe as a function of stopping the jettison early; to balance; we ended up landing just a little bit over max landing weight. Not sure on that. Fire trucks rolled. Landing uneventful.




Synopsis: A B747 developed a fuel imbalance about 3.5 hours after takeoff which could not be balanced and lead to an assumed fuel leak. While returning to the departure airport and jettisoning fuel; the imbalance remained during the overweight landing.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SQL.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: TBM 700/TBM 850
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D SQL
ATC / advisory: Tower SQL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was descending on a visual approach to SQL using the Vertical Speed Required (VSR) field from my GPS. I neglected to level off at 1;000 FT to intercept the VASI. The Tower gave me a low altitude alert and I corrected.




Synopsis: A TBM-850 pilot; in daylight VMC; received a low altitude alert from the Tower when he failed to transition from monitoring a GPS generated 'required rate of descent' to visually monitoring the PAPI adjacent to the runway of intended landing.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [On] initial climb; moderate vibrations [were] felt followed by L ENG Exceedance. ITT was noticed by First Officer as red. L ENG Exceedance Checklist completed. Even with L thrust reduced; vibration continued with moderate intensity. Quick right downwind for return to Runway XXL already established. Left ENG Vibration caution on three minutes after first warning. [We] elected a precautionary shutdown. No emergency declared but Fire and Rescue requested and confirmed with ATC. [We] joined a four mile final with approach centerline to [Runway] XXL. Normal landing [and] roll out to full stop near taxi way exit. Fire and Rescue directly behind aircraft. Exterior inspection revealed no bird impact or front fan damage. Gear pins installed on runway with FBO towing plane back to ramp for parking. No other warnings or cautions. [Maintenance Control] contacted for write up. Crew completed Shutdown Parking Checklist.




Synopsis: Challenger 350 Captain reported left engine indications exceeded limits during climbout and it was shut down as a precaution. Flight crew returned to departure airport and landed without incident.
Date: 201508
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Three children (elementary school age) and their mother were given seat assignments in the emergency exit row. Flight deck requested a customer service agent to reseat the family due to FAR violation (121.585). When I asked the customer service agent whether or not the boarding pass reader beeped (due to passengers seated in the exit row seats) as the children presented their boarding pass; he stated that it did beep; but the agents just don't have the time to address the FAR violation.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant identified during boarding that young children were incorrectly issued exit row seats. After requesting that they were reseated; Flight Attendant was informed that Customer Service was too busy to confirm seat positions during the boarding process.