elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [During cruise]; crew noticed left fuel tank quantity decreasing slowly; but steadily with fuel remaining in the center tank.Monitoring during cruise with reference to the Operational Flight Plan did not indicate a fuel leak. However; the situation would eventually cause an imbalance. Additionally; the wing tanks are meant to be full with greater than 1;000 pounds in the center tank.Due to the abnormal situation and after consulting with the company; the decision was made to divert to ZZZ. [ATC was advised] due to the aircraft exceeding an operational limitation and proceeded directly to ZZZ.An overweight landing to Runway 1C was performed and the aircraft stopped once clear to allow for an external inspection to be performed by the Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighting team.No defects were noted and the aircraft proceeded to the gate without incident.


Second narrative: Although wing fuel tanks were full at departure; the left fuel tank quantity decreased 400 pounds to 8;160 lbs; with more than 1;000 (approximately 8;000) pounds in the center tank. This exceed our limitation requiring wing tanks full with more than 1;000 pounds in the center tank. We ran the suspected fuel leak checklist and determined there was no leak. With support from Dispatch; [Maintenance Control]; [Flight Ops Manager] we elected to divert to ZZZ. [ATC was advised] and we landed without further incident.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported excessive fuel consumption during cruise resulting in a diversion.
Date: 201306
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Emergency Exit
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying 'A' position; I placed the red flag over the view window; but did not lower the girt bar in place. Shortly after 10;000 feet we got up to do service and it was then that the 'C' Flight Attendant noticed it was still up and she lowered it. My thoughts were momentarily distracted by something I learned during ground time. That said; I need to [be] vigilant in keeping focused on completing the arming procedure and not allow my thoughts to be distracted at this very important moment. I am terribly sorry as I take my responsibility flying the position very serious and will work very hard to never allow this to happen again.




Synopsis: B737-300 Flight Attendant reported failure to lower girt bar into place on departure because of a distraction. The error was discovered in flight.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Cessna 170
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On downwind leg for landing; I experienced a loss of power. I was not sure if I could make Runway XX. I spotted a wide striped street area parallel to the runway with planes parked on both sides and knew I could make the landing without hitting any surrounding housing. I was immediately told I had landed on a street. I moved the plane to the adjoining airport runway. I left the plane tied down for 3 days before returning and was informed to submit this form.




Synopsis: Cessna 170 pilot reported an engine failure resulting in landing on a road.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSN.Airport, WI
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other descent / arrival
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the approach phase of the flight; the Captain was doing a visual approach to Runway 18 into KMSN airport. ATC give us a bad vector towards the final approach course. The Captain tried to fix it but on the descent the GPWS came on while on the visual approach. We performed the scape maneuver followed by a missed approach. Came back again and landed without any further issue. The lesson I learned is that if the approach is looking uncomfortable just tell the Captain I do not feel comfortable and will like us to be re-vectored.




Synopsis: First Officer reported a GPWS event and was reluctant to express the uncomfortable approach to the Captain.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: TRACON MCO; Tower MCO
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Prior to departure on [Runway] 36L at MCO; I was given an initial departure clearance of: Climb via the SID to 7;000 via the EPCOT 1 Departure. After takeoff; Tower handed me off to Departure and I was given different instructions: Climb via the SID EXCEPT climb and maintain one six thousand (16;000). I understood the clearance to mean 'climb to 16;000' because of the word EXCEPT inserted into the clearance. ATC advised that I had flown through 7;000 (by approx 600 feet) and advised me to descend to 7;000 feet. I called the Tower the following day to discuss the matter. The supervisor advised me that this was an ongoing issue and that there seemed to be a 'terminology' issue with issuance of this particular SID. I agreed with his assessment and informed that the term EXCEPT changed the meaning of the clearance to indicate a change in instruction. The term THEN would have been a more standard choice. He informed me they were holding a Quality Assurance meeting to solve the issue.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot reported an altitude deviation during departure from MCO airport.  Reporter stated the terminology 'Climb via the SID EXCEPT' is confusing and was told it has been an ongoing issue.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After gate arrival and after the passengers had deplaned; and after we had established external electrical power; and the APU was off; a ramp agent informed me that he had observed smoke coming from the back of the plane indicating the possibility of an APU fire. He also informed me that they had called the airport fire personnel; after the fire personnel arrived the fire marshal informed me that they sensed some heat and asked if I could fire the APU fire bottles which I complied with; they then informed me that the heat was dissipating. The taxi in and shutdown process was normal with the exception that when I selected secondary power - the only one available at the time - there was a big power shift/surge that seem abnormal at the time; after this the primary power was also established and the APU was turned off; there was never any indication of anything abnormal in the flight deck as the APU appeared to have completed the shutdown process. Maybe instruct ground personnel to always provide primary external power on the 777 first; not sure this had an effect on the incident; it just seem logical.




Synopsis: A B777-200 pilot reported firing the APU fire bottles when smoke was observed near the APU after gate arrival.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SSQ.Airport, WI
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Cessna 180 Skywagon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I reviewed the cross country flight plan of my student pilot and endorsed his logbook to make a solo cross country flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 to ZZZ2 to ZZZ3 where he planned to refuel the airplane and then continue on additional legs to ultimately return to KFLD. For some reason; he decided to not refuel at ZZZ3 but rather continue to his next destination; SSQ. The aircraft began losing power approximately 15 nm NW of this destination; and he successfully landed in a pasture. Based on departing from KFLD with nearly full tanks and flying approximately 3 hours; there should have been sufficient fuel regardless. As of this time; I am unaware whether fuel remained in the tanks; Mechanics are inspecting the fuel ventilation system to determine whether such an issue was involved.




Synopsis: Cessna 180 instructor pilot reported that his student had to conduct a forced landing due to fuel starvation of an unknown cause.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Portable
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain diverted aircraft due pressurization issue. Encountered emergency descent and masks dropped. Diverted and landed without incident. Was recently informed 3 POBs were used and not reported to Dispatch from Maintenance. For my involvement in the event; as far as I know; no FAR or procedure was violated during the diversion and I was not informed of POB use.




Synopsis: A B737-700 pressurization system malfunctioned so the crew declared an emergency and diverted. During the descent the O2 masks dropped and three personal oxygen bottles but were used but not reported to Maintenance.
Date: 201909
Location: MGGT.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I pulled the oxygen mask out to wear during bathroom breaks. I found that the beige/orange oxygen mask goggle portion did not seal up at the top of my face with very large gaps. It was written up in GUA.Yesterday; the First Officer pulled the oxygen mask to wear during bathroom break and found a plastic rivet missing on the front of mask. It was written up [at the destination airport]. On arrival I stepped off the aircraft to see a Mechanic on the jetway with a new beige/orange oxygen mask that I had previously known not to seal up around my face. I asked I thought we were taking these off the aircraft because they don't seal up and he said he didn't know but this one came from the parts room at the hangar. Maybe it's possible I do not understand the engineering of these new oxygen masks and air is expelled out these large gaps to prevent smoke from entering; or they fit perfectly on square faced person; or they are poorly designed masks. But I do think we need to take a closer look please.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported an anomaly with the cockpit oxygen masks that did not seal properly.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Lines; Connectors; Fittings
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure immediately after gear selected up we received a HYD VOLUME LOW A amber CAS message. Both mains retracted; the nose gear remained down. We continued on departure and pulled out checklist at safe altitude. It took about 5 -10 minutes from takeoff until we were able to finish the check list so we got a HYD O'TEMP B Amber CAS message. Almost immediately after pulling the HYDR B/PTU CB per the checklist; the temperature of the B side came down to normal indications. After checklist was complete; we reviewed the checklist for HYD O'TEMP B; but everything had been completed with previous checklist and temperature of the B side was on its way down. We called our maintenance team. After all checklists were complete we felt comfortable continuing to destination; which also allowed us to burn fuel. Enroute we continued to monitor B system pressure and temperature. Prior to landing; we followed checklist for LANDIN WITH NO 'A' HYDRAULIC SYSTEM PRESSURE. For landing we had flaps at 15 max; no left TR; No antiskid and emergency brakes only. After reviewing the checklist; the crew briefed the landing and transfer of controls during the rollout. The PF would transition to the tiller and emergency brakes. The PM took the yoke and the right TR. We declared an emergency while talking to Approach and advised we would have to shut down on the runway and we would be using emergency brakes. The landing was uneventful. We were met by the fire trucks and airport ops. The FBO towed us to the hangar from the runway. Hydraulic leak appeared to come from a line in the nose compartment after post flight inspection.


Second narrative: [No additional information from Narrative #2.]


Synopsis: CE750 Crew experience the loss of hydraulic system A when the landing gear is selected up after takeoff. The main gear retracts but the nose gear remains extended. The crew elects to continue the relatively short flight to destination with the nose gear extended. An emergency is declared prior to landing and the aircraft is towed to the hangar after using emergency brakes to stop.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X departed climbing to 3000 feet. He checked in stating that he was looking for traffic. By the time we got Aircraft X the traffic was 12-1 o'clock; 2 miles at 2500 feet. We immediately turned Aircraft X to the south for the traffic. The Tower never called us to coordinate a different heading; altitude for the aircraft they just departed in the upwind.Sadly; this has become a procedure/habit at this Tower. I've had this happen multiple times and never [reported] before because even though it upset me that this Tower does nothing to ensure separation; management has stated that this is how it's always been. I worked at a tower and we never allowed a jet to climb into VFR traffic we just departed. Now granted; this Tower doesn't have a lot of room to play with. They depart aircraft and don't ensure separation with VFR they are talking to. Most of the worst situations I've seen have been with jet departures. I don't know if they have just become complacent; or don't consider it their responsibility or were taught to not care. I truthfully have yelled at them a few times because they have jets climbing into VFR arrivals/departures and give me the excuse that 'I issued the traffic'.We are working on this issue; however; I'm going to start [reporting] this whenever I see it.Tower needs to understand that we are a team. They can call us and ask for a different heading or altitude for their departure. I feel like we are always trying to help the towers when they need it; I don't understand how they think departing a jet behind a [small aircraft] which is climbing through the slower aircrafts altitude is safe. They switch the jet to Departure control and only issue the traffic; even if the Tower were to claim that the jet had the traffic in sight; they come to use straight out climbing. You're not giving the pilot anyway to avoid the traffic even if they see each other. This is extremely unsafe and is putting the pilot and us at risk.




Synopsis: A Control Tower departed a jet behind a slower moving VFR prop aircraft on the same route without taking action to ensure separation. The Tower issued traffic to the jet and switched it to Departure Control frequency.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Engine Air Starter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I removed and replaced the starter that was bad due to it not starting the engine. I placed the new Air Turbine Starter (ATS) in per the [Maintenance] Manual (M/M). I put some oil into the ATS but it wasn't enough. I would say this would go under my experience level. I've only been with the company going on two years now; but this was the first time I've changed this part myself without more experienced persons and I've only seen it done once before. Located at Blast Fence on the Ramp.[In the future]; I would call anybody with more experience for further knowledge or information to comply with the tasks a lot better. As well as read over the manuals twice; or even three times; to insure that I fully understand the task at hand.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports he did not add enough oil to an Air Turbine Starter (ATS) he had replaced on an Embraer aircraft.