elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
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: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise FL370 normal operations aircraft experienced unexplained failure of the left engine. First indication was an engine fuel valve left shutoff along with engine fail left. Crew began communications with Center and began a diversion to nearest suitable airport ZZZZ. Satcom link was established with Dispatch; Flight Duty Officer and Maintenance Control for remainder of flight for support. A descent was initiated while running engine fail left checklist and restart procedures. Fuel schematic indicated engine fuel shutoff valve closed. No engine exceedances were observed. Engine restart attempt failed. Crew executed a single engine approach and landing. All appropriate checklist were accomplished. On descent and arrival to Runway 17 aircraft encountered heavy rain/possible hail which damaged paint to aircraft radome. No other damage observed. Successful landing accomplished with emergency terminated on taxi in. ATC; Company and ground support was exceptional.


Second narrative: Crew called on SatCom to advise that fuel shutoff valve had shut down the left engine while at FL370 and they had descended to FL290.  I conferenced in Maintenance/Power Plant and the Duty Officer.  Crew had run QRH red tabs and was recommended to land at nearest suitable airport.  Closest company facility was approximately 600nm from aircraft position.  Crew suggested a different airport located approximately 300 nm due south of flight path.  We determined that facility met suitability requirements and then diverted flight.  Aircraft landed without incident.  It was not necessary to dump fuel.The engine shut down was caused by the fuel shut off valve.


Synopsis: At cruise; a B777 engine shutdown in flight after the FUEL SHUTOFF VALVE closed so the crew diverted to a distant airport for a safe landing.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LMO.Airport, CO
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G LMO
ATC / advisory: CTAF LMO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was a busy day in the pattern at LMO and BJC was closed for pattern work. I had already done one lap in the pattern at LMO and was in the downwind for another lap. In the downwind; the skydiving operation announced a few times; 'Jumpers away'. I saw them and told my student to make a slightly wider pattern to accommodate them. Just as we made a slight deviation; an aircraft; Aircraft Y; entered the pattern mid field downwind and my ADS-B indicated they were the same altitude as us. Aircraft Y announced they had 'downwind traffic in sight' but it was likely another plane. They cut us off not only in the downwind; but also headed straight for the jump zone. The jump plane announced frantically 'parachutes have been deployed'. I was careful not to climb or descend while I did not have Aircraft Y in sight because ADS-B indicated they were same altitudes. We did not see them until they were passing just under us. Once I saw them; I asked their intentions with no response. I decided it was best to depart the airport back to BJC. Upon returning to BJC; I spoke with many instructors from different flight schools in the area and it seems like the traffic pattern at LMO has become increasingly dangerous. Many instructors have had near misses with other pilots not making calls or entering the pattern however they wish.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a NMAC with an aircraft that cut off reporter's aircraft while on the downwind.  This happened LMO airport which is reportedly known for parachuting and had jumpers in the air at the time.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out of ZZZ the Captain and I noticed a fume smell that did not dissipate. The Captain called the Flight Attendants and they also reported the smell and that they had headaches; irritated eyes and throats. Several passengers also noticed the fumes; which appeared to be stronger in the cabin. We ran the appropriate checklist and got ATC clearance to return to ZZZ. We made an overweight but uneventful landing on Runway XXR. CFR (Crash Fire Rescue) and EMS met the aircraft and the affected passengers and cabin crew were offered appropriate care. Neither Captain or FO (First Officer) had any symptoms and at no time was any smoke or fire observed by anyone.The cause of the fumes remains undetermined.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an air return due to fumes in the aircraft.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: System Monitor: Indicating and Warning
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we approached the hold short line for the departure runway the RAAS went off simultaneously with Tower evidently trying to communicate with us. Because we were unable to hear due to the RAAS; we asked for a repeat of whatever it was they had transmitted. With the RAAS having finally shut up and Tower repeating itself; we discovered that we had been both cleared for takeoff and issued an initial departure heading.This event was caused by that well-known hazard to flight 'safety' item; the 'Really Awful Advisory System'.




Synopsis: Unexpected activation of RAAS system caused distraction of an air carrier flight crew during taxi resulting in a missed ATC transmission.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Lost communications with ARTCC Cleveland Center. The flight departed BFD en route to ZZZ via ETG V33 [...]. We picked up the clearance and were released for departure through Cleveland Center while on the ground in BFD over 124.32 (Cleveland Center Bradford Sector). Once airborne; we checked in with the same frequency and received radar contact. This was the last time we heard Cleveland Center. Sometime later; approximately fifteen thorough twenty minutes an aircraft relayed a message to us that Cleveland Center was trying to contact us on 124.4 (Cleveland Center Altoona Sector). We acknowledged and reestablished communications with Cleveland Center. The rest of the flight continued without incident. Normally we receive a frequency change somewhere around our top of climb; in this case nine thousand feet. However; none was given or heard. As PIC I should have noticed this earlier and queried ATC. That said; there seems to be a significant gap in coverage in that area. This is most evident when approaching BFD from the south. A frequency change is given from 126.72 to 124.32 and it usually takes several minutes to raise a controller because of this weak signal. The typical scenario is that Cleveland Center is able to her us trying to check in but we are unable to hear them. It is my belief that this gap may have contributed to the lost communications. If the hand off was made we were not able to hear it.


Second narrative: Lost Comms with ARTCC. We contacted Cleveland Center on 124.32 upon start in BFD and picked up our clearance without incident. We contacted Cleveland Center airborne and were given radar contact. This was the last time we heard from them. No hand-off was given.The Captain was pilot on comms and I was pilot flying when he had just completed the VOR check and Engine trend monitoring sheet when we were contacted by an Air Carrier X jet with a relayed message to contact Cleveland Center on 124.4. We contacted Cleveland Center on 124.4 and the flight continued without any further incident.


Synopsis: Air taxi flight crew reported radio issues in the BFD airport area.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Other Unwanted situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Having executed the HAWKZ Arrival into SEA approximately 5 times now - I finally decided to provide feedback about how BAD this arrival works. Today's flight included an additional ATC 'slow to 230 KTS' clearance; while maintaining all the required crossings (our FMC had us scheduled for 260 KTS). Our VNAV path was disrupted and caused distractions. Previous experiences I've had: First (two times) ATC changed expected runway close to the time we crossed a fix - causing a huge distraction and disconnect in both LNAV/VNAV because of programming. CWS was entered. In one case; the LNAV created a 'holding pattern' course. Had I not seen it before - it's likely that my Captain would have been off course. Next; strong tailwinds cause inability to make crossings. Finally; ATC slows us and still asking for crossing restrictions. The HAWKZ arrival is a failure. FAA; my company and ATC knows this. It has consistently resulted in higher workloads; distractions and reduced safety to our operations arriving into SEA. Despite numerous reports from other pilots; someone who insists on us continuing to use the arrival (personal agenda or otherwise; refuses to acknowledge the problems related to this arrival. This approach doesn't work because of the 'one size fits all aircraft' it was made to apply to. Additionally; the dynamic changes (usually runway changes assigned by ATC) in descent into SEA - make it incompatible for this environment and airspace. It needs to be taken out of use until it can be fixed. If this HAWKZ Arrival causes my fellow crews or I a violation or incident; the numerous reports that have been submitted will come forth during a hearing; should one take place. For safety reasons; I recommend the arrival be discontinued until a useful fix can be made. Those persons ignoring these reports need to acknowledge its incompatibility and resulting higher workloads and do the right thing. Acknowledge the HAWKZ arrival lends higher workload and less safety; then discontinue use of the HAWKZ arrival until it can be fixed!




Synopsis: A B737 Captain strongly expressed his dissatisfaction; supported by multiple personal examples of operational issues; with the lack of response from his Company and the FAA to numerous reports he and other pilots have submitted regarding the disfunctionality and the reduced safety resulting from use of the HAWKZ RNAV STAR into SEA.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a routine training flight; where I was providing flight instruction under CFR Part 61; I experienced a mechanical failure of the left main landing gear during the extension cycle. The landing gear position indicator did not indicate green wheels; down and locked. It was observed from the cockpit; and numerous witnesses on the ground; that the left main landing gear appeared to be stuck in an in-transit position. Numerous attempts were made to troubleshoot and rectify the malfunction with no success. Radio communications were established between the pilot flying and maintenance personnel to further troubleshoot and find a solution. The nose landing gear; and right main landing gear operated normally when extended and retracted; however the left main landing gear did not appear to move. The angle of the left main landing gear was approximately 30 degrees from the fully extended position; and was hanging approximately 4 feet from the bottom of the fuselage as confirmed by ground base witnesses. It was decided that an emergency gear-up landing be attempted at a nearby airport due to the larger runways and rescue services available. An emergency was declared. One low approach was made for further visual confirmation. The Tower confirmed that the right main landing gear and nose wheel were in the up position; with the left main landing gear hanging below the fuselage. A successful gear up landing was made on the subsequent approach; with the left main landing gear folding aft into its wheel well; and the aircraft sliding to a stop on its belly. The pilot and passenger evacuated the aircraft with no injuries.




Synopsis: C172RG Instructor pilot experiences a left main gear failure during a training flight and elects to land with with the nose and right main gear retracted after declaring an emergency.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FAR.Airport, ND
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground FAR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The Jeppesen and NACO taxiway diagrams for FAR are missing the taxiway between the airline terminal ramp and Runway 9 (directly south of C5 on the south side of Runway 9-27). This taxiway has been open for a few months now per FAR Tower; complete with standard lighting. It should be added to the airport diagram ASAP.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that FAR has a new taxiway that has been open for several months; but is still not shown on the airport diagrams (NACO and Jeppesen). The new taxiway connects the terminal ramp to Runway 9 at Taxiway C5.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot monitoring. We were given a clearance to maintain 250 knots until advised. Upon reaching 10;000 feet we accelerated to 290 knots (our normal profile). I advised the Captain that we were given a 250 knot clearance...we discussed and I probed the Controller and confirmed we were given a 250 knot speed restriction until 14;000 feet. We began to slow down. I believe the cause of this is the fact that we have not been flying a lot because of COVID. I had been furloughed and brought back to the line and retrained. I believe if I had been flying more often than I would have been able to catch this lapse earlier or could have reminded the Captain once we reached 10;000 feet.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a failure to notify the Captain that the aircraft's speed was exceeding the clearance limit during climbout. First Officer cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent we went 400 FT below a crossing altitude. The pilot flying caught the error as it was happening; disconnected the autopilot; and returned to the assigned altitude. At about the same time; ATC called to let us know that he noticed and let us know that there was no traffic/conflict noted. Background: we had loaded and double checked the altitudes in the FMS and were using the VNAV function. I had just put in the runway in use and was in the process of checking the FMS/IPAD to confirm the altitudes again when the error occurred. Upon further checking; we found that all the crossing altitudes (even the hard programmed ones) had been dropped from the FMS.


Second narrative: On the JAIKE THREE arrival I was the flying pilot. We check the FMS 3 times and all altitudes were correct for the arrival. Runway was selected at Morristown; New Jersey. FMS drop all altitudes for the arrival after JAIKE and started a gradual descent with auto pilot on with VNAV engage. We went from 13;000 to 12;600 when I saw the descent. Turn the autopilot off and went back to 13;000. ATC saw it and call to make sure we knew to stay at 13;000. We corrected and reprogram the FMS with correct altitudes again. No conflict.


Synopsis: Citation X flight crew descended below assigned crossing altitude.