elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Super King Air 350
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: No abnormalities were noted of the aircraft during preflight and the flight earlier that day was uneventful. During the initial climb a short time after selecting 'Gear Up' the master caution and the 'Hydraulic Fluid Low' lights illuminated. Referencing the checklist; I continued the climb while receiving several vectors from ATC around thunderstorms. At approximately 18;000 FT I heard the landing gear motor make a whining sound and then the landing gear relay circuit breaker tripped. Soon after the red light in the gear handle illuminated signaling an unsafe gear situation. At that point; I notified ATC of the hydraulic failure and landing gear problems and our intention to return to [departure airport] which provided a longer runway and better facilities. I immediately received a clearance to descend and return. During the descent; I asked for and received additional vectors to lose altitude while maintaining an airspeed less than 186 KTS in case the landing gear was partially down. I briefed our two passengers on the situation. I leveled off at 5;000 FT and selected gear down and reset the circuit breaker. I could hear the motor running; but did not receive any green lights after a few seconds. Per the manual gear extension checklist; I again pulled the landing gear relay circuit breaker and performed all the items on the manual gear extension checklist. I received three green lights. I notified ATC and received a clearance for a visual approach. I completed a normal landing without incident or any other abnormalities and taxied to the FBO. A post flight inspection revealed that the belly and lower tail area aft the wing were coated in hydraulic fluid. No other visual indications of problems could be seen. Subsequent maintenance work revealed that an o-ring in a fitting near the hydraulic reservoir had failed causing all the fluid to leak out. The aircraft was repaired; tested and returned to service. Since the failure was internal; little could be done to detect this problem prior to it occurring again.




Synopsis: A King Air 350 lost hydraulic fluid after takeoff. The Pilot declared an emergency; followed procedures for manual gear extensio and returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FTY.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Atlanta Approach cleared us to join the LOC Runway 8 course at TIINI from the DIFFI2 STAR. While on the STAR; we were cleared to 3;000 FT; and the PIC selected V/S mode. As the airplane made the turned to join the LOC we were still descending. At about 3;200 FT the Autopilot (A/P) vertical mode changed to ASEL. The PIC reselected vertical speed (V/S). The A/P went back into ASEL; and then alt mode. At about 3;050 FT the PIC reselected V/S. I stated 'altitude' to indicate the potential deviation. The PIC allowed the airplane to descend to 2;850 FT; again I told the PIC he needed to climb. The PIC started to correct the deviation with the A/P; [and] then disconnected the A/P. The PIC corrected to 2;950 FT and reconnected the A/P. The airplane started a descent; (I stated that the plane was descending and he needed to climb) and the PIC disconnected the A/P. The airplane was allowed to descend to 2;750 FT before returning to the assigned altitude of 3;000 FT. Approach did not say anything; and switched us to the Tower shortly thereafter.After landing; I asked the PIC why he selected the V/S mode after the mode changed to ASEL; and he responded that he wanted to make sure that the autopilot captured the altitude. I think that this is a fundamental lack of understanding of the autoflight system on the part of the PIC. Though this was taught in initial there have been changes to the autoflight system (phase 5.2 i.e. autotransitioning; etc) that a review of the system to make those less comfortable with relying on and trusting the system the newer edition; and the new limits (i.e. the autotuning occurs between 25-30 nm from destination) may be helpful. I could have taken the controls. However; this endeavor did not seem needed as the PIC was responding to my verbal cautions as he attempted to recover to the correct altitude.




Synopsis: The First Officer aboard a CE-680 repeatedly reminded his Captain to maintain their assigned altitude as the Captain appeared uncertain of the autopilot vertical navigation functions.  Several modest deviations were initiated and arrested without comment from ATC.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight 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
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was cleared to climb to 9000 feet MSL. The climb out included some light turbulence. After being handed off to Center; the controller said there was extreme precipitation at my 2 o'clock; and 5 miles. I could see this system on my radar screen; but my flight path was going to keep the aircraft away from this cell.I was VMC for a few minutes after the controller told me about the heavy rain. After a few minutes; I was IMC with moderate rain. All of a sudden; I experienced a bout of severe turbulence. The jolt sent my headset and glasses flying through the aircraft. It was as though there was a sharp downdraft; followed by an atrocious updraft. For a moment; I did not have control of the aircraft. Once I gained control of the aircraft; I looked around to see the passengers. Aside from being very shaken up; each of them seemed okay. My passenger in row 4; however; was bent over; and she was holding the top of her head. We were still flying through moderate turbulence with rain showers. I could see it was beginning to get light in a few miles; so I knew the weather was about to improve. I notified ATC of the severe turbulence; and the location at which I encountered it.Once we were VMC; I scanned over the aircraft to try and assess any structural damage. I also began talking with my passengers to make sure nobody needed any immediate medical attention. I made the decision to keep flying towards [the destination airport]. I made a slow descent to 5000 feet MSL; which would keep me out of all clouds; and hopefully; any further turbulence. We landed without further incident. The passengers were met by EMTs; and each was given an examination. One passenger was taken by ambulance to the hospital for further evaluation.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C402 reported severe turbulence that resulted in a momentary loss of control and injury to one passenger.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B N90; Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X departure from JFK climbing to FL120. No handoff from N90; aircraft just showed up on frequency stating direct SHIPP climbing to FL120. N90 controller made no verbal contact to manually handoff the aircraft or coordinate route. New ATC procedure in effect; no handoff required; route doesn't matter; ensure communication change prior to leaving airspace.   There was an associated track; which I slewed up. It was an Aircraft X tag with a destination of ZZZ via GREKI. I was not aware of who had track control. There were multiple flight plans. I asked the supervisor for some help on the H position to fix this situation. Flight time in R66 for this flight is less than 5 minutes. We never did get it fixed. Manually coordinated with R86 with information that the OCEAN21 system had an ICAO flight plan to be utlized for coordination with Oceanic sector D87.An error was made somewhere. Don't expect this to be a one time incident; because of the current culture. Procedurally we have taken a step back. Ensuring accuracy of flight data has taken a back seat.




Synopsis: ZNY Controller describes a situation where an aircraft shows up on his frequency without his knowledge. The aircraft wasn't handed off or coordinated with N90. Controller had to figure out where aircraft was going and attempt to get it there. Another data tag of the same call sign added to the problem.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: T6A Texan II / Harvard II (Raytheon)
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While holding over ZZZ on an instrument training flight; I felt a significant left yaw and noticed the 'ball' deflect fully to the right. I asked the student if he were applying left rudder; and he told me that he was not. I took the flight controls from the student and noticed that I had to put in significant rudder pressure to center the 'ball.' I opened my emergency procedures checklist to the runaway trim procedure; and executed those emergency procedures. I contacted Approach; told them that I had a flight control malfunction; and asked to go back to the base. On the way I climbed to 7;000 MSL; and performed a controllability check. The airplane was controllable with heavy rudder pressure down to our final approach speed; so I elected to land. The landing was uneventful.




Synopsis: While on training flight the student and instructor aboard a Beech Texan II encountered un-commanded rudder displacement that they could not trim out but could overcome with pedal pressure. They returned to their departure airport and landed uneventfully.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LOU.Airport, KY
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Fog; Snow; 3
Light: Night
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D LOU
ATC / advisory: Tower LOU
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the RNAV 24 to LOU there are a pair of ground lights not associated with the airport or approach that resemble a PAPI. These lights are white and located approximately 1.1 miles prior to the RUHEE intersection. The lights are just left of the final approach course; just like the PAPI for Runway 24. These lights can easily be mistaken for the actual PAPI. Since these lights are white; a pilot may think they have spotted the PAPI and that they are high; causing them to descend prior to runway! This is a serious issue! We had restricted visibility of 3 miles; and almost mistook the lights for the PAPI. There was no conflict; nor was there any deviations. I am reporting it in hopes that you can remove the lights; modify them; and/or place a Notam for any approach to Runway 24.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reports that two bright lights on the ground; visible during the RNAV 24 approach to LOU can be mistaken for the PAPI and cause an early descent. They should be removed or Notam'd.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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 Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: After delays due to difficulties with the navigational satellites applicable to the CRJ we departed ZZZ for ZZZ1.  While in the climb with Center; we were cleared direct ZZZ VOR.  We turned toward what we thought was ZZZ VOR; but discovered a big discrepancy (100+ miles) between our moving map position on the MFD and the VOR signal.  Pilot Flying was operating in white needles with Auto Tune on.  Pilot Monitoring switched from white needles with Auto-Tune on to green needles to verify the VOR signal.  As we were noticing the discrepancy; ATC alerted us that our heading was incorrect for ZZZ VOR and assigned us a heading.  Requested radar vectors for the remainder of the flight. Issues with the navigation satellites applicable to the CRJ.  The aircraft seemed to be having particular difficulty establishing it's location even in Auto Tune mode. Creating a procedure to determine if Auto Tune is working on the ground to establish a somewhat accurate position for the aircraft before departing enroute.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported navigational issues relating to the FMS and GPS problems.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When I received the aircraft; the #1 Hydraulic System was at 30%. I contacted Maintenance Control and asked if I needed to enter that into the maintenance log; or if I was permitted to simply pushback; and then follow the supplemental procedure to transfer hydraulic fluid. Maintenance Control responded that I was allowed to simply depart; and accomplish the procedure to get the hydraulic quantity above 40% prior to taking off. Which is ultimately what we did: pushbacked; and then once the engines were running we balanced the hydraulic quantity. We were only able to get both sides to 50%; so the aircraft was lower on hydraulic fluid than is typical for the fleet; but is well within the limitations. Our next two legs were completely uneventful in the aircraft. Later in the day; I heard that aircraft had experienced a hydraulic failure; and I can't help but wonder if my failure to enter the imbalance into the maintenance log might have masked the impending failure.If something might indicate an impending failure; the QRH or supplemental procedure should include specific instruction to enter it into the maintenance log; so that Maintenance can track such issues.

Callback: The reporter stated that hydraulic fluid can flow from one system to another if a pilot does not monitor his taxi technique. When the systems do reach a predefined imbalance then a supplemental pilot procedure is approved to balance the systems. The reporter's concern has been and still is; that the maintenance log has no place to record the balance procedure in order to track the hydraulic systems' fluid use. In this event; the balancing procedure was used and at some point during the day; fluid was probably added; but no record of the balancing procedure existed which may have been used as a precursor to the system failure later that day.



Synopsis: A Q400 crew detected a hydraulic system quantity at 30% and transfered fluid to equalize both systems at 50% then learned later in that day the aircraft suffered a hydraulic system failure.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: COS.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp COS
Aircraft component: Aircraft Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Manuals; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: When reviewing weight and balance takeoff data; the 'Flap Retraction Altitude/Min Cleanup Altitude Engine Out listed for Runway 35R was different from the that listed on Jeppesen 10-7 chart. The aircraft data showed 7;400 ft. as the cleanup altitude while the Jeppesen chart showed 7;187 ft. We checked the Takeoff/Landing Reference section and it also showed 7;400 ft. We remembered reading somewhere that [performance] data supersedes other data if there is a conflict. I checked the [performance data] link on the COS page and under Normal Operations Section; it states 'In the event an Electronic Flight Plan(EFP) instruction differs between sources; use EFP output from ACARS.' It is apparent that the Jeppesen 10-7 chart is then incorrect as the other two sources state the minimum is 7;400 ft. We set 7;400 ft. as the cleanup altitude because of the statement about using ACARS output if different data exists and because it is the most conservative/higher altitude but this needs to be corrected to prevent confusion for Crews in the future. Thanks. Incorrect engine out minimum safe altitude on Jeppesen Chart.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported the Engine Out Min Safe Cleanup Altitude on the flight plan is different vs the Jeppsen special page.