elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: A temporary tower was in use. I noticed the flight of 9 on a downwind and I assumed they were preparing to perform a fly-by of Runway XY. I was cleared for takeoff behind another flight of 3 aircraft. I did not see the location of the previous flight of 9; and departed as instructed. I continued runway heading as I watched the previously departed flight of three and as I climbed through about 1;000 feet AGL I was passed on my left side very closely by the flight of 9. At no time did the Tower advise either me or the flight of 9 of the traffic.In retrospect; this was sort of a perfect storm for a conflict. My aircraft is slow (70 KTS); but climbs very rapidly (1;500+ FPM). The flight was probably cruising about 140 KTS and wouldn't have expected slower traffic to suddenly climb into their flight path. I can't see traffic above and behind me; especially with 70 KTS of overtake.Tower is manned by volunteers who do a superb job of handling lots of traffic; but unfamiliarity and distraction caused a loss of situational awareness. I would suggest the following procedural change and other fly-ins where there is a fly-by pattern that lies over the top of the departing runway: That departing traffic be restricted in altitude on departure; say 800 AGL until clear of the airport and fly-by traffic be restricted to 1;300 AGL while overflying the runway.




Synopsis: Pilot reported departing airport during fly-in and was overtaken by unreported fly-by aircraft.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; 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: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach to ZZZ; approach gave my student and I [in] Aircraft X a 130 heading and told us to enter right base XXL. Aircraft Y was behind us and given a heading of 140. We switched to Tower as instructed and Tower instructed us to fly through final for departing traffic and he'd call our turn back. Aircraft Y checked on and since they were now on a collision course with us; was given a 090 heading to fly. They did not read the instruction back; Tower repeated the instruction but was stepped on partially. Aircraft Y asked if that was for them. By this time Tower had turned us back toward the runway and told us to enter left base. This put us head on with Aircraft Y with only 100 feet of separation. I intervened and executed a descending left turn to avoid traffic. Only after this did Tower successfully give instruction to Aircraft Y to turn away fly downwind for XXL.Make sure to listen for your call sign when ATC calls you. If you're not sure if it was for you; ask. Eyes outside especially operating in vicinity of many other aircraft in a busy arrival corridor.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported an NMAC during approach when another inbound aircraft did not acknowledge ATC instructions and the Tower Controller turned the first aircraft head on to the other.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Was assigned to change the [rudder] weight out. My Coworker and I weighed the old weight and the new weight and were told to install. We informed them that the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) said if the weight was out of limits for corrosion to contact Engineering. Was told that we are going to change out per the Component Maintenance Manual (CMM). CMM does not have a chapter on replacing the weight but a chapter disassemble and reassemble. Reassemble is generic with no torque valves. Then on signing off the weight they signed off that a jig balance is not required per a Maintenance Engineering [Document]. Maintenance Engineering cannot give work instructions per our Maintenance Procedures Manual. Then they referenced the SRM for corrosion removal on the weight that weight and balance is not required because after you remove the corrosion the SRM tells you if you are in still in the design weight limits that a weight and balance is not required and also says if the weight is out of limits to contact Boeing Engineers (not to replace the weight). Then the other SRM reference says that a second static balance requirement is N/A but the table is under step F which says that the primary static balance requirement is required and to get the primary static balance requirement are met you must make sure that the secondary static balance requirements for the rudder are met. I also have a Company report which was rejected by a Engineer Manager stating that changing the rudder weight out is considered rework per the SRM and the rudder requires a balance by either a static balance jig procedure or a calculation procedure.Do a weight and balance procedure or add an AMM procedure to change out the weight without the weight and balance procedure requirement.




Synopsis: B737 Maintenance Technician reported changing the rudder arm weight without performing a weight and balance procedure.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Visual approach backed up by ILS. F25 auto brakes 3 briefed. Winds were gusty at 300/11-17 knots. Normal approach with stabilized approach criteria met. Touchdown was smooth. After initial deceleration via brakes 3 manual brakes were applied by the pilot flying. Deceleration continued; reverses stowed around 80 knots. At about 70 knots I said I have the aircraft. I continued braking and exited at Taxiway N. Exiting the runway Tower said they saw smoke coming from the landing gear. I cleared the active runway and stopped straight ahead. We requested fire. Tower advised immediately after that no smoke was visible. Called flight attendants and asked them to assess. They advised they saw some smoke; but now clear. Gave direction not to evacuate. Passengers advised to stay seated. While waiting for fire reviewed gear synoptic. I saw no high brake temperatures. When fire arrived they advised we had several blown tires. Contacted maintenance to come to the aircraft to assess the situation. It was determined the aircraft could not be towed. Air stairs were brought out and passengers were deplaned and bussed to terminal. Dispatch and Maintenance Control were notified. CRM good throughout this event.


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


Synopsis: A Boeing 777 flight crew reported that after landing ATC reported to the crew that smoke was coming from the landing gear.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Inbound flight had a 'Flight control - Spoiler fault.'Maintenance deferred Number 5 spoiler. This deferral required the Number 5 spoiler to be 'inoperative; retracted; and deactivated' per the MEL. Enroute; we discovered that the airplane with the autopilot on; was flying with 2.5 degrees left rudder trim and about 2-3 degrees right bank. FO (First Officer) made an inspection of the spoilers from the cabin.It was discovered that the right spoiler was 'floating' i.e. extended during flight when it should have been retracted along with all the other spoilers. Per QRH; this causes an additional 10% fuel burn. As this was a relatively short flight; we determined that the additional fuel burn was not a big concern. As we were beginning descent at this point; the decision to continue to destination was made with no further notification (due to time constraints and relatively minor effect on the flight plan.) We didn't believe this met the criteria for declaring an emergency; and therefore did not.The flight was continued to destination; landing about 900 lbs short of planned fuel due to the extended spoiler. Maintenance 'write-up' was made; and out bound crew advised.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported Maintenance deferred an inoperative spoiler.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Went out to local area/airport to practice landings with student. Landings were relatively uneventful at the airport due to direct headwind so departed back to [another airport]. Upon arrival; we entered the pattern and I was assisting the student in landing. We entered one approach; but due to sink-rate and turbulence performed a go-around and re-entered the pattern. I told student I only wanted him to control power and I would fly the rest. The pattern was performed correctly; we overshot final slightly; but corrected for it. Told student to start reducing power which he did. We came in over the numbers and sank abnormally fast. I performed a relatively quick round out and flare and we touched down on the main wheels on centerline. I applied brakes which resulted in them becoming locked. Released brake pressure however brakes remained locked. Started veering to the left; I determined that correcting would be unsafe and thus steered the aircraft between the runway edge lights to avoid damage and into the grass. No damage to aircraft or persons.




Synopsis: PA28 instructor pilot reported departing the runway on landing roll when the brakes locked after initial application.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This aircraft had 7 MEL [deferrals]. Maintenance cleared two items just before pushback. They did not work. Number 2 EFB failed during performance briefing. Weather Radar failed during pre-flight test. PDM procedures followed for EFB. First Officer had to retrieve the paper KIT for his charts. I waited until he was completely comfortable with his paper charts. The EFB failed due [to] new program [we used]; and I had to use my EFB for the performance briefing. We did not have a performance computer. The 7 MEL's required extra review; and then Maintenance cleared two; but did not work; which required more time to document. Total time used prior to pushback was 27 minute primarily due to failure of Number 2 EFB. One MEL; the HUD INOP; actually worked fine. Also the EFIS worked; ops normal. This was requested by Maintenance to see if they worked; before any more maintenance.More proactive maintenance. Why does an aircraft have 7 MEL's? The EFB product is not reliable. It freezes up the EFB screen; and frequently shows software errors. The touch screen is sometimes not compatible with the software. It does not 'touch' easily.




Synopsis: An MD-11 was delayed for a variety of reasons including an inoperative EFB; Weather Radar failure; HUD inoperative; and then a review of seven MEL deferrals for complete understanding.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SLVR.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center SLLF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The clearance was to TERAX UA304 VIR direct.  Once established on Airway UA304 ATC cleared us to 7000 feet. In VMC condition the captain decided to start a descent. There was no arrival in the FMC to SLVR. We looked at the area chart and there was UA304 depicted on the chart with a crossing for SALBI; at FL170.  Nothing on the en route chart. During the descent ATC consistently enquired about our altitude and distance from the VIR VOR. He then came back and reported us too low for the area and advised us to climb. We were VMC the entire time; so we leveled off and delayed the descent. We later found out they have a generic arrival in the Jepp charts with no identification or name identifying the chart itself [20-2].  Next time we must take a delay at the departure field and make sure we review the all the arrivals in the Jepp. Even though the FMC does not pull one up or ATC does not even assign you an arrival by name.




Synopsis: First Officer reports being cleared to FL070 by SLVR ATC with no crossing restrictions or arrival procedure mentioned. ATC indicates to the crew that they are too low during the descent and levels off. After landing an arrivals page; which the crew believed to be an area chart; is discovered in the Chart manual but no arrivals exist in the FMC.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: HF SSB
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Manuals; MEL; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: On previous flight; HF antenna was found broken. Maintenance removed the antenna and MEL'd [(deferred)] the HF System inoperative. The next day after much consideration; I felt that to MEL the HF System inoperative; because the antenna was missing; was not the proper MEL. An MEL for the antenna missing or removed would be appropriate and it would also address the fact that the HF Radio was affected; except there is no such MEL or CDL item. Several authorities both inside and outside the company agreed that the MEL was acceptable as written; so I continued to fly the aircraft; however I still feel that the MEL was not appropriate. The MEL addresses only one resulting problem CAUSED by the actual problem; rather than addressing the problem itself. It would be similar to MEL'ing the Window Heat inoperative because the windshield was missing. I would like to see an MEL or CDL addressing a missing or removed antenna (HF or any other) rather than using the MEL for an inoperative radio to cover a missing antenna. Maintenance entered an MEL that I don't consider appropriate. Had discussions with Maintenance personnel; the Flight Duty Officer (FDO); the Union Steward on duty and a Cessna Service Customer Service Representative.




Synopsis: A First Officer reports that an HF antenna; found previously broken on their CJ3 (Cessna 525B) aircraft; had been improperly deferred as HF System radio inoperative instead of antenna being missing. Adding to pilot's concern was the lack of any MEL or CDL language available for a missing antenna.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This will be a report of the most embarrassing moment of my professional pilot career. After over X000 hours and over XY00 hours of tailwheel with nearly Y00 hours alone in many different types of Super Cubs; I lost directional control departed the runway upon landing in ZZZ. I believe that my student accidentally hit the left brake upon landing and I did not have my feet near the heel brakes in a position to counter his brake movement. Soon after touching down the airplane jerked to the left about 30 degrees and I went full right rudder and the airplane departed the runway to the left. It was equipped with upgraded suspension; 3 inch extended gear and many other bush flying modifications that gave it over 3 feet of prop clearance. I did not hit any runway lights and nothing was damaged other than pride. Contributing factors include a seat that was not properly installed; a far AFT CG and possible improper loading of the baggage area; and several squawks related to the trim system and tailwheel assembly. After the excursion we mailed some gear to the destination to ensure we were within CG; although the builder of the aircraft didn't list any limitations with the extended baggage (maximum weights; etc). Based on my experience however we would have likely exceeded the loading limitations for a certified Super Cub with a similar extended baggage. However; this was no excuse and in hindsight it is likely that some right brake may have prevented the issue. The lesson I learned is to always be ready with the brakes and anticipate that a student could inadvertently hit the brakes upon landing.




Synopsis: PA-18 pilot reported a runway excursion upon landing.