elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out the master warning illuminated and the EAD showed a 'HYD R QNTY LO' alert. We ran the checklist and advised all parties (flight attendants; Operations; Dispatch; ATC; passengers; etc) that we would be returning to [departure station]. After declaring an emergency we did an emergency extension of the gear and landed smoothly overweight on the runway centerline where we came to a straight stop. Upon touchdown we recognized and felt all the indications of a right tire failure and we were told as much after stopping by the CFR crews. The right main gear was sprayed down by CFR as a precautionary measure and the aircraft was eventually towed back to the gate. During post flight [inspection] apparent damage was [discovered] to parts of the aircraft including hydraulic fittings and lines and the underside of the flaps and the right engine from the debris of the right tire failure. No abnormal engine parameters were observed. The event was handled very professionally by all involved.




Synopsis: B717-200 Captain reported loss of right hydraulic system during climbout. An emergency was declared and the flight returned to departure airport.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A B757-200 aircraft arrived with a pilot report reading squeal at Left-2 (L-2) [cockpit] window with aircraft at 17;000 FT and a cabin differential pressure of 6.5 PSI. During the initial inspection; we found irregularities at the window jam which we found to be within limits. We burnished; primed; painted; and smoothed the [window] jam. During the confirmation pressurization [check]; we inadvertently over-pressurized by approximately 2 PSI. The aircraft; while in [another Maintenance Base]; went through a complete check as outlined by Boeing; with no damage found.

Callback: Reporter stated he was referring to the Captain's left sliding window (L-2). Initially they went to a 2.5 PSI cabin differential pressure check with no squeal noted. He did repair minor damages on the window frame jam caused by screws from the previous sliding window that had been replaced recently. But after re-reading the pilot's squawk; he decided they had to pressurize the aircraft to at least the same cabin pressure (6.5 PSI) when the squeal was noted by the flight crew. He followed the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) for the cabin pressure check. Again no squeals occurred. After he had signed-off the window discrepancy; the same squeal was written-up again on the next flight into ZZZ1.Reporter stated a 'red flag' went up at the downline Station when ZZZ1 mechanics had noted in the Maintenance History of the B757 aircraft; that a cabin High Pressure Differential Check had been performed without any reference to the Fault Isolation Manual (FIM) procedures for cockpit window squeal reports. The FIM check procedures have specific requirements and calculations that are suppose to be accomplished along with checking certain equipment; including Pitot Static pressure flex lines. He was not aware of any FIM procedures for window pressure squeals. ZZZ1 mechanics performed another cabin presssure check and found a fuselage HI-LOK fastener was leaking near the pressure seal for the sliding window.



Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports how his lack of knowledge of a reference in the Fault Isolation Manual (FIM) for cockpit window pressure squeals; contributed to his not performing a proper cabin High Pressure Differential Pressure Check on a B757-200 aircraft. The Captain's left sliding window area had chronic pressure squeals.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: ACR X; who was cleared for a Visual Approach; was switched to advisories and told to cancel on the ground. About three minutes later I noticed aircraft level at 080 MSL beginning to make a turn to the northeast away from the airport without prior communication of intentions. I then proceeded to try multiple transmitter sites and relaying through another aircraft to contact ACR X and ascertain his intentions. About two minutes after that; ACR X called and expressed that he was experiencing an unsafe gear warning light and needed time to 'go through his checklist'. Once I realized his intention to either orbit or hold at the local VOR; I climbed aircraft to a safe altitude for terrain and cleared him to the VOR to hold and await further instructions. When I decided to climb the aircraft they were between 080 and 085 in a 090 MIA. I neglected to advise him of the terrain or wait to climb the aircraft when he was about the MIA of 090. On the pilot side; ACR X should have contacted me sooner to advise us of his intentions and what situation he was experiencing. I should have ascertained whether aircraft had good visual with the terrain using proper phraseology and then used prescribed phraseology to give him a clearance once I observed him above the minimum safe altitude.




Synopsis: An Enroute Controller described an emergency event involving an aircraft cleared for a Visual Approach to a non-towered airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Motor
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; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise; we had a 'Stab Out of Trim' light. The QRH was run and we determined that we had to land the aircraft using manual trim. We coordinated with Dispatch and ATC for a diversion to ZZZ. An initial decision was made to reduce fuel to max landing gross weight by holding. After several turns in holding and in coordination with Dispatch and Operations Center Chief Pilot; the decision was made to exercise Captain's authority and proceed to ZZZ for an overweight landing; rather than continue to hold for the two hours it would take to burn down to max landing gross weight. We were vectored to a 20 NM final for Runway XXL and had an uneventful approach and landing. Brake cooling was accomplished and we were able to do a normal taxi and park at the gate. Flight Attendants and Passengers were kept aware of our situation with regular updates.

Callback: Reporter stated that the Stab Out of Trim light was likely a result of the integrity monitoring system detecting a discrepancy between the main trim motor and the position of the stabilizer. The trim motor would then be automatically disconnected from the system. Reporter stated that the manual trim functioned normally for the remainder of the flight. Reporter did not know the root cause of the event.



Synopsis: B737 MAX 8 Captain reported the electric trim for the stabilizer ceased functioning; causing a diversion and overweight landing.
Date: 201305
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This was my first takeoff since completing IOE on the 737. We were flying a 737NG aircraft and our gross takeoff weight was near MATOG. This takeoff was planned for bleeds off and flaps five. At around 110 KTS; we received a door warning indication and the Captain verbalized 'Continue.' A few seconds later; I heard loud screaming from the back around the 1L door. It also sounded like wind noise from the back of the aircraft. Just about that time; the Captain called 'Reject; I have the aircraft.' I confirmed that he had control of the aircraft and that the spoilers were deployed and reversers were being utilized. As we began to rollout; I notified the Tower that we were rejecting on the runway. As the aircraft came to a stop; I notified the cabin to 'Remain Seated'. The deceleration was much smoother than I expected with an RTO procedure. I was told that it was a very violent maneuver but was surprised to see how quickly and smoothly the aircraft came to a stop. Since we were so close to an exit for the runway; the Captain decided to roll the aircraft clear of the runway and I agree with this decision. The Captain called for the 'Rejected Takeoff Checklist.' After completing the checklist; the Captain called the back to confirm everyone was all right and that everyone was seated. The flight attendants stated that the door opened one foot during the takeoff roll. We made arrangements to return to the gate and had Maintenance standing by.




Synopsis: The flight crew of a B737NG conducted a high speed rejected takeoff when the 1L cabin door opened approximately one foot during the takeoff roll.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; 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
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I intended to rent C172RG Aircraft X from a Company to practice landings today at ZZZ. The flight went according to plan until retracting the landing gear on climbout from RWY (Runway) XX. As the landing gear retracted; the aircraft's electrical system failed and I lost my radios and transponder. I flew the traffic pattern as I normally would until abeam the end of RWY XX; where I attempted to extend the aircraft's landing gear. The gear did not extend; so I departed the pattern straight out on a downwind to resolve the issue. After pumping my landing gear down by hand; I established communication with my cellphone with Maintenance on the ground at ZZZ; who made radio calls for me as I flew the aircraft in on final. I touched down and was able to terminate the flight without further incident. My main concern in filing this report is that after experiencing the electrical system failure; I did not have a functioning transponder. ZZZ is located within the Mode C Veil of ZZZ1; and a transponder is required while operating inside of the veil. Because of the electrical system failure; I was operating without a transponder. Based on the nature of this incident; the best course of corrective action that could be taken in order to prevent a recurring incident of a similar nature is for the electrical system to be examined and undergo whatever maintenance is necessary.




Synopsis: Pilot reported returning to the departure airport after loss of electrical power.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PSP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PSP
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to taxi via W and A to RWY 31L. Current Notam in Effect for Runway 31L/13R closed at PSP; Taxiway C was now the temporary RWY 31L/13R. As we turned left onto A from W at the approach end of RWY 31L/13R I called PSP Tower and advised them we were ready for departure! I continued across the 31L/13R Hold Line without Takeoff Clearance we were told to stop and hold our position and we were advised by the Tower that the 'Hold Bars had not changed' we asked if they wanted us to taxi clear and we were advised to hold our position. In 2 minutes we were cleared for takeoff on RWY 31L. At the time of this event there were no air traffic conflicts on the ground; in the air or on final approach. We were the only aircraft operating and there was no hazard between our aircraft and any other vehicle or aircraft on the ground or in the air!I took for granted that the hold line for the temporary RWY 31L had been moved closer to the Temporary Runway and I disregarded the original hold line for the Permanent RWY 31L. I did not mean to breach the hold line and instantly realized my mistake!Corrective action:I will closely review taxi clearances especially during non-normal operations as was in effect at PSP with the temporary RWY Notam.I will pay more attention to current taxi position and make sure I do not cross hold lines unless I clearly have the appropriate clearance to do so!I will maintain better situation awareness during all phases of flight!




Synopsis: CE525 Captain reports inadvertently crossing the hold line after being cleared to taxi via W and A to temporary runway 31L at PSP. The original hold lines were in effect but were ignored by the reporter as being too far from the runway.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMMM.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MMMM
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We received clearance to taxi from tower. The clearance was to taxi runway 05 via alpha into position. This was the clearance that was read back. There are no parallel taxiways at the airport so any taxi operation requires a back taxi on the runway. As we approached the intersection of alpha and runway 05 we checked both directions for traffic and then proceeded. We were half-way onto the runway when I observed a single-engine Piper just lifting off runway 05. We immediately stopped our aircraft and the Piper flew past in front of us. We called tower and reported the Piper and asked if we should proceed. The tower controller seemed confused and finally confirmed our clearance to taxi into position and hold. After debriefing with the First Officer it is our impression that the tower controller had forgot about the Piper who seemed to be doing pattern work at the airport. Both of us never remember hearing any hold short instructions and believe the controller had indeed cleared us into position on runway 05. This incident confirmed that our SOP of visually checking the runway prior to entering is critical to safety of operations. It also confirmed that just a quick check is not enough and we must continue to scan for traffic throughout the taxi.


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


Synopsis: C680 flight crew reported experiencing a close encounter with a departing PA-28 while cleared to back taxi on MMMM Runway 05.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I removed a passenger for non-compliance with a condition of carriage -- wearing the mask. I asked the passenger to don his mask three separate times. Each time; he gave me some sass. I notified him that I saw his actions as refusal to comply with our mask policy and told him that if I couldn't rely on his compliance; he would not be able to fly with us to ZZZ1. I got another 'whatever' from him; so I initiated the removal process by speaking to the gate agent; who called the CSA; who removed the passenger from our flight. The CSA later informed me that the passenger in question was traveling with 3 companions. (I only saw two companions; and they were each initially non-compliant as well; but then did comply after I spoke to them.) The CSA asked me if I wanted all 4 passengers removed or just the one passenger. I told her that I was only concerned with the one passenger and that the other 3 were free to come with us. I do not know whether they took our flight without their companion; or whether they took the next flight with their companion.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a passenger was removed for non-compliance with face mask policy.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While operating in RVSM airspace. We were in level flight at FL360; moderate turbulence; dodging thunderstorms and received numerous aircraft alerts along with an intermittent stick shaker (indicated airspeed was greater than 30 KTS above the lower foot). One of the alerts was the autopilot disconnecting along with the autothrottles. As the pilot flying I maintained altitude and airspeed while the First Officer (pilot not flying) referenced the QRH for the associated alerts. The QRH drove us to the MD-11; Airspeed: Lost; Suspect; or Erratic Checklist. This checklist calls for the  aircraft to get stabilized in altitude and airspeed and then compare airspeeds from both pilots stations along with the standby to determine the faulty system. We determined that the First Officer's airspeed was off by -15 KTS. During this entire portion of the checklist I was hand flying the aircraft in RVSM airspace due to neither autopilot being available. I'm aware that this isn't in compliance with the FAR's; but in our situation of running the checklist requirements and the turbulence along with the inoperative equipment it was the only choice we had. During this entire situation; our altitude never varied by more than +/- 150 FT from FL360; which was our cleared altitude. Both the First Officer and I felt that our actions were the best choice for the bad situation. Thanks to my First Officer for his systems knowledge and proficiency; it truly helped to prevented this situation from getting out of hand.




Synopsis: An MD-11 First Officer's airspeed indicated fifteen knots less than the Captain's indications during moderate turbulence at FL360. The Captain hand flew the aircraft in RVSM airspace because the autopilots were inoperative along with an intermittent stick shaker.