elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Enroute approximately at FL380 we encountered severe turbulence for approximately 20 seconds. During the encounter we experienced a strong updraft that caused the autopilot to disconnect and the aircraft to climb rapidly. The Pilot Flying (PF) immediately hand flew the airplane and stopped the aircraft assent at FL38.5 and returned the aircraft to FL380. During the event I informed Center that we were in severe turbulence attempting to exit and the aircraft climbed briefly and we were recovering; the altitude deviation lasted no more than 5 seconds. Prior to the event we were in VMC and smooth air with some thunderstorms South and Southeast of our route of flight; the radar showed nothing in front of us and no other aircraft in the vicinity or ATC mentioned any turbulence. Also; the HUD and EFVS (Enhanced Flight Vision System) were MEL'd and completely inoperative. The turbulence event was a complete surprise. We also reported the encounter to aircraft maintenance via ACARS and a maintenance log entry. Due to the severity of the turbulence and the strong updraft the autopilot disengaged causing the aircraft to rapidly ascend before the PF could make a correction. If the EFVS had been functioning it is possible the PF could have seen whatever caused our severe turbulence and we could have avoided it. More advanced WX Radar equipment that is now commercially available may have also detected it and allowed for avoidance.




Synopsis: A widebodied freighter encountered severe turbulence at FL380 which resulted in the autopilot disconnecting and a 500 feet climb. The HUD and Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) were both inoperative.
Date: 202201
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Departing DEN as soon as we took off we lost both GPS systems and Transponder 1 and 2.  Systems returned to normal ops at FL260.  ATC informed us numerous aircraft reporting same issue. On arrival into the airport numerous received spurious TCAS alerts.  TCAS was already set to TA only due to reports from preceding aircraft into airport of TCAS alerts.   Turned off TCAS system and landed safely.  Thrust reverser also showed an issue on taxi in; possibly related.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported erroneous TCAS alerts on arrival; with GPS and transponder failure on departure from DEN.  Captain and other aircraft suspected possible GPS jamming.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing on Runway XXR with a slight tailwind; began slowing to turn off to taxiway. Went to raise flaps to improve braking. Next thing heard the horn for the gear warning and starting skidding on the running. Skid about 150 feet to a stop on the runway. Right wing tip hit the pavement. Left main gear partially retracted and right main gear almost fully retracted. Nose gear collapsed. No injuries or fire. Some small amount of fuel leakage from the right wing.




Synopsis: A single engine light aircraft pilot reported main landing gear collapsed while turning off the runway onto the taxiway.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sundowner 23
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Cylinder Head
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flied IFR from ZZZ to ZZZ1; engine began to make a strange noise on initial climb. Noise began to get more noticeable and then I noticed a vibration beginning. I canceled IFR and returned to my home field of ZZZ. When the Mechanic removed the cowling to investigate he discovered the number 3 cylinder of my Lycoming O-360 had sheared off all 4 of its deck studs and 2 of the 4 through bolts had nuts backed off their posts. The engine was overhauled in 2013 at [FBO] and had 200 hours since overhaul.




Synopsis: Beechcraft C23 pilot reported a loss of engine power on climb out resulting in return to airport.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On arrival to ZZZ knowing we had a flap low speed MEL we decided to configure early. After being instructed to put the flaps to 9; flap fail message appeared on EICAS. Running the QRH for flap fail message led us to properly configuring aircraft for a flaps zero landing. Requested vectors further downwind to properly discuss the new arrival procedure and notify cabin crew. Followed the QRH for an arrival and landing checklist resulting in a non-issue no flap landing.QRH should emphasize the use of speed brakes in no flap conditions.Using extra time to properly follow the QRH made all the difference especially properly disabling the EGPWS system.


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


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported flap extension failure on aircraft with a flap low speed MEL resulting in no-flap landing.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Strange odor in cabin. Odor in cabin.




Synopsis: Boeing 737-900 Flight Attendant reported a fume event.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: There was an odor in the cabin upon descent into ZZZ and ZZZ1. When we got to ZZZ1 the Captain asked if I smelled anything. I said yes. I have never been in a fume event and the smell was nothing like the descriptions I was told.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant reported undefined odor in passenger cabin during descent for landing.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: All operations were normal up to the RVSM Check at FL 290. We noticed that the Standby Altimeter was frozen with an off flag and the Airspeed was showing zero. I asked the First Officer to pull out the QRH to see if we have a checklist related to our situation. It turned out that there was no checklist for a Standby Altimeter and or Standby Airspeed failure. We also checked the circuit breaker panel and found no popped circuit breakers.I then gave the controls to the First Officer as it was my leg; and I informed him that I was going to call the Company via SELCAL. I was then linked to Dispatch and Maintenance Control explained my situation. Maintenance Control also agreed that there was no checklist for our situation. Dispatch then informed me to continue the flight to [destination] and they would have Maintenance waiting for us to fix the airplane. I declined to continue to our destination; as I felt it was unsafe to continue with our destination still being close to 3 hours away and it was IFR at our destination. If we were to lose electrical power; we would have no altitude or airspeed on emergency power. Not a situation I wanted to be in. Dispatch then gave us the okay to return to [departure airport]. Return flight was normal. We switched airplanes and we also spoke to the Duty Pilot.




Synopsis: Captain reported returning to departure airport when the standby airspeed indicator and standby altimeter failed.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was R-side sector 16. Aircraft X; had checked on just after I took the position at FL380. About 6 minutes later I gave Aircraft X 'descend and maintain 240'. As I issued the instruction I put 240T380 in the Data block and handed off to Sector 9; which was the sector below me where the aircraft would be worked until reaching Approach. The aircraft however never read back the instruction. I tried to reach the aircraft numerous; probably 5 planes on my frequency and made a call on guard to return to 135.45. Again; the aircraft never read back descent to FL240. I then saw that Sector 9 had taken the hand off and put 110T380 in the data block. At that moment I called Sector 9 and asked if they were talking to him; which they replied 'affirmative'. I then determined that either Aircraft X went to the next frequency without reading back an instruction or being told to change frequencies; or he checked on level with Sector 9 and they gave him a descent through my airspace. I then requested to go listen to the tapes. After doing so; found out that Aircraft X left my frequency and went to Approach; who then reached out to Sector 9 asking what frequency he should be on. Sector 9 gave them their frequency. Aircraft X then checked on saying 'Center; this is Aircraft X; we got lost somewhere with Center in there'. Sector 9 then gave a descent to 110 without verifying Aircraft X's altitude; thus descending them from FL380; since they never received the descent to FL240 and never read it back. It is implied from the data block that that clearance was given; but the instruction was never read back; and had never been verified by Sector 9; no control was released from me on sector 16; and no verification was done with the aircraft.




Synopsis: Seattle Center Controller reported an airspace violation when an aircraft left their frequency and called another sector; which then descended the aircraft without permission.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The FMS Navigation database was on MEL for being out of date. It actually was current when we accepted the aircraft. The FMS Status page showed the unit as fully functional and up-to-date. We checked the MEL book and saw we could use the FMS as long as we verified the accuracy of fixes using Jepps. Also; we noted that RNAV 1; 2; and Q routes were not accepted while operating under this MEL. The incoming Captain told us the MEL would be cleared once we reached PHL. During our flight I had to take a moment to put drops in my eyes (I had a dry contact). This required the removal of my headset for a moment. Control of the aircraft was handed off to the FO while I did this. I don't remember the altitude. During the moment I was off headset ATC asked if we could accept the JIIMS2 RNAV arrival instead of the VCN8 we were on. The FO took the radio call and asked me if we could accept that. I answered yes; thinking only of needing to check the accuracy of the fixes and forgetting about the restriction of no RNAV arrivals. After a short while I realized my mistake. At this point it didn't seem to make much sense to request a new clearance as the FMS database was actually up-to-date and functioning well.On the plus side this situation greeted a heightened sense of awareness regarding this MEL. Prior to departing PHL for our next leg we determined that without an unrestricted RNAV we'd be unable to fly to [destination]. Maintenance and Dispatch elected to sign off the unit as having a current database (thus removing the MEL) before we left the gate. To prevent this from happening in the future I believe a good strategy would be for both the FO and I to discuss the restrictions MELs require; in depth; before leaving the gate. This would create the necessary heightened awareness we had lacked.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported they failed to comply with an MEL restricting the use of the FMS to non-RNAV arrivals.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: It appears to me that there continues to be an issue with how the 737 VNAV is flying the SFO ALWYS1 RNAV Arrival. Last week; I witnessed the airplane in VNAV PATH unable to comply with published speed as it descended via the arrival between HEFLY and ARRTU. It had difficulty because the airplane inexplicably chose to cross HEFLY at the FL190 high end of the published altitude and thus had virtually no chance in crossing ARRTU at 10000 and 250 kts.Today; before flying the same ALWYS1 Arrival; I took note of a message on the flight plan paperwork which recommended entering a hard altitude of 14000 at HEFLY. I did that. What the airplane then did in VNAV PATH; after receiving a descend via clearance from FL270; was to cross LAANE at the high end FL260 and 280 kts. Subsequently; we were left with 23.5 miles for the airplane to get from FL260 at LAANE to 14000 at HEFLY with a requirement to slow from 280 to 250 kts. Again; the airplane was unable to handle the unrealistic altitude and speed parameters. In hindsight; I could have entered another hard altitude of FL220 at LAANE to create a more flyable path; but I don't understand why the VNAV logic wouldn't have done that planning on its own.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported the difficulty the aircraft has meeting the gates on the ALWYS ONE ARRIVAL (RNAV) route into SFO even after entering some of the altitudes as hard altitudes in the VNAV PATH mode.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MLE.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Other Post Flight
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Logbook Entry

Narrative: I received a call from the Regional Aviation Director and the Regional Maintenance Director. They informed me of an incident in which I was involved concerning maintenance that had been performed; without my knowledge; on an aircraft that I had flown and was not properly documented in the maintenance log. [A few days prior] I arrived at our base maintenance hangar; MLE. I performed preflight checks on aircraft to include checking the maintenance log. The maintenance log was properly filled out; to include two write-ups dated [same day]; both were signed off per Company standards. I proceeded to pull the aircraft out of the hangar and returned to our base helipad. I departed at XA:38 and landed at XA:48 without incident. No other flights were conducted during the remainder of my shift; which ended at XJ:00 [the next day]. I understand that the aircraft was taken out of service [the next day]; after information that improper maintenance had been conducted on aircraft. Proper maintenance was then performed and the aircraft was returned to service the same day.




Synopsis: EC-130 Pilot reported undocumented maintenance was performed on the aircraft he flew.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HIO.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Propeller
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing to obtain fuel on a night IFR cross country flight; we had a prop strike. It happened on the south side of a refueling station (the 'mushroom') that had a 100LL sign; which was the type of fuel we were looking for. As we slowly taxied to the refueling station we were turning left to align the airplane with the refueling station fuel hose reels; the starboard main landing gear went down an unmarked drain hole with a metal grate on the bottom [at which time the prop strike occurred]. After shutting off both engines; we disembarked and only then realized the refueling station was for fuel trucks. The refueling station had previously been available for airplanes. There was no signage to indicate for fuel trucks only and not for airplanes.




Synopsis: The instructor pilot aboard a small twin engine airplane taxied to what he believed to be the aircraft refueling station at HIO and; only after taxiing into a depressed drainage grate and striking the right prop; learned it was intended solely to refuel gas trucks which conducted aircraft refueling on the adjacent ramp.