elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute; at cruise altitude we received a R ENG OIL PRESS EICAS message. Further inspection of the engine instruments reviled ZERO oil quantity as well. The captain called for the Engine Shutdown Checklist and it was accomplished in accordance with the 757 QRH. We diverted to the nearest suitable airport.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reports an EICAS message for low oil pressure at cruise altitude. When the engine instruments are checked oil quantity is found to be zero. The engine is shut down and the flight diverts to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other Holding Pattern
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Beechcraft Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: A small transport aircraft departed ADW Air Force base requesting the TACAN Alpha approach into ADW with one turn in the published holding pattern. I paper stopped the small transport initially at 2;000 feet to miss crossing IFR traffic at 3;000. Once clear of the IFR traffic at 3;000; I climbed the small transport to 3;000 and took care of the necessary coordination with BWIFS and ADW Tower in order to proceed with the approach. Well before leaving the Class Bravo airspace to conduct the holding pattern; I informed the small transport that they would be holding outside of the Class Bravo and that I would advise him of any conflicting traffic. Shortly after entering the hold I observed a Becchcraft aircraft heading southbound toward the small transport and I issued traffic to the small transport. The small transport stated that they had the Beechcraft in sight and were tightening up the turn to ensure separation. The small transport then informed me that they were responding to a TCAS RA and descending to 2;300 feet. I reported the incident. The TACAN-A approach into ADW must be NOTAMed out until the procedure is modified so that an aircraft can stay in controlled airspace while holding and conducting the approach or modify the DC Metro Area Class Bravo to contain the approach.




Synopsis: PCT Controller described a TCAS RA event experienced by a military aircraft holding pattern for the TACAN-A approach into ADW; the reporter advocating expansion of the Class B to protect the subject holding pattern.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
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: Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise FL320 and Captain's windshield started arcing. Began using QRH procedure for arcing windshield and requested lower as a precaution. Windshield shattered before we could complete QRH procedure. Declared an emergency with ATC and switched to QRH cracked windshield procedure. Since we were relatively close to one of our stations; we had started a descent and determined inner panel of glass was still intact per QRH procedure we continued and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: An A320 Captain's window began arcing; and then the outer pane shattered as the crew was completing the QRH. An emergency was declared and the flight landed at a nearby airport.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was a deadheading crew member aboard Aircraft X. Due to my earlier arrival of flight I was scheduled to sit on the departing aircraft for over 5 hours. During that time I was alone on the aircraft up until the departing operating crew and Maintenance arrived at their normal station times. Maintenance conducted a normal power-up if the aircraft APU and left the aircraft. At a time 30 minutes prior to departure Maintenance arrived back at the cockpit and signed the aircraft off for a 'Daily Check.' Highly suspicious of a daily check; I asked the signing Mechanic of when he did the daily check; and if he followed the proper work order for the daily check. The Mechanic responded that he did the check at the time of the aircrafts arrival; and that 'they' in ZZZ only do tire pressure checks and a fire test by use of the ENG/APU/CARGO fire test button on control panel P8. I asked if he completed all the items listed for a daily check per the work order; and his response was; 'no.' After showing the local Mechanic the company provided work order to conduct a daily check on the B767-300; he replied 'I did not do that procedure.' The Mechanic insisted Maintenance only instructs a daily check needs tire pressure and fire test only. The Mechanic agreed he would sign the aircraft off for a transit check only; since the preceding daily check in ZZZ was still applicable.There is a large disparity within our local and third party Maintenance programs. Checks on the aircraft are obvious and clearly evident of being over looked. Many Mechanics are cutting corners and arguing with operating flight crews on the legitimacy and accuracy of mechanical work and inspections. As a crew member I am severely worried about the integrity amongst our Maintenance group. Too many times DDG items are improperly placed and daily check are falsely recorded. As an airline that recognizes SMS (safety management system) and TEM (threat and error management) I would hope that these issues are addressed. Flight crews do not accomplish the required system checks within the daily or transit maintenance programs.




Synopsis: Captain reported observing non compliance with daily inspection requirements.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We departed 32L at ORD. While climbing through 13;000 FT and accelerating to normal climb speed ATC asked our speed. I responded 280 accelerating to 300 KTS. ATC advised we were limited to 250 KTS per the O'Hare SIX departure. We immediately reduced speed to 250 KTS. We re-examined the chart. The new chart had been revised to state 'turbojet departures all directions maintain 250 KT until advised by ATC'. The previous restriction only applied to fixes to the south for years! Surely an error on our part not to notice the change; ATC also stated many other aircraft had been making the same error. Maybe if the commercial aero chart provider were to have revised the chart by placing the speed restriction box in all quadrants rather than just changing the wording in the box in the south quadrant the change would have been more noticeable.




Synopsis: An MD-83 flight crew accelerated toward normal climb speed in violation of the recently revised restriction of 250 KTS until advised for all departures on the O'HARE SIX SID from ORD.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RIC.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Preflighted aircraft and was ready to go. [Approaching departure time] there was still no load sheet. Went up to the Agent and asked what the issue was. He told me that the Ramp Agents had not counted the bags. I told him they need to be counted. After 20 minutes the bags were counted and the load sheet was given to us. I hope we had the right bag count. Pre-start was completed and I called the Tug Driver and said 'Aircraft XXX; A's are off; brakes are set; cabin door lights are out'. Tug Driver then said 'yep' and I repeated my initial spiel. I then heard mass confusion from the Tug Driver and it became readily apparent he had no clue what to do. A Supervisor stepped in and the Tug Driver had to read from a card (messed that up too). We finally were able to push but it gave me very little comfort. It was obvious the Ground Crew did not have adequate training.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported the push back crew was apparently not trained properly according to SOPs.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During my solo XC after having clearance from ZZZ Tower to land on runway XX. I followed procedures for landing and landed. After flaring and touching down runway XX; I applied back elevators pressure; and waited until airspeed of the plane slowed down then I applied left and right breaks at the same time. Due to uneven braking; the plane skidded off the runway and onto grass on the left side of runway XX. I was then told to shut down the engine. I immediately informed my flight instructor about the incident and was escorted by operations to the FBO where I also provided [Airport Personnel] with a statement.




Synopsis: Student pilot reported a runway excursion on a solo cross country.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was enroute. I thought I issued a descent to 11000 feet. They were passing through a 11000 MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) area. I saw Aircraft X descend to 10800 feet; then 10600 feet. I asked if Aircraft X was maintaining 11000 feet. Aircraft X answered that they had been cleared to 10000 feet. I issued them 11000 feet and to expect lower in one minute. Aircraft X stopped their descent but did not appear to climb back up. Aircraft X remained at 10600 feet for approximately 5 miles in the 11000 foot MVA area. Listen carefully for readbacks; especially if the aircraft has a scratchy radio.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported they observed an aircraft that descended below the assigned altitude and below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude did not climb back to the assigned altitude when instructed.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HIO.Tower, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D HIO
ATC / advisory: Tower HIO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I approved an opposite direction ILS full stop several miles in advance. Upon first contact with the opposite direction approach I was advised by them that they wanted a touch and go followed by picking up an IFR flight plan back to their airport. During the coordination between myself; Ground Control; and TRACON several other aircraft had called inbound to the airport. I proceeded to coordinate with Ground Control to get a runway and dump all of the other traffic onto this runway to avoid opposite direction traffic. During this time another aircraft came inbound and I placed them on a right base. Additionally Aircraft X called inbound to which I approved a charted arrival for. During this time I also had a practice approach inbound that I told to enter right base. An aircraft called inbound from the North for touch and go's that I instructed to enter right downwind. I cleared Aircraft Y to land and he started his descent towards final. Moments later Aircraft X asked about an aircraft on downwind heading towards the pattern and I told him Aircraft Y was on base leg. It wasn't until it was brought to my attention two weeks later that the Aircraft X reported a NMAC on frequency. After listening to the playback I seemed to be task saturated with working complex traffic and with the poor radar coverage to the south; just completely forgot about Aircraft X inbound from the west.I have always believed this procedure to be a poorly designed one in which it allows additional holes into the SMS. We are asking helicopters to under fly aircraft in the downwind by 500 feet but placing the cross over point 1 1/2 miles past the numbers which is direct conflict with descending aircraft; or worse for base leg traffic. I would recommend to be allowed to follow old procedures.




Synopsis: HIO Local Controller reported a helicopter filed a NMAC while complying with an arrival procedure.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: B787-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A flight called me when they were in Country X airspace saying Country Y would not let them enter because they did not have a flight plan on file. I resent a filing and requested assistance. After about 5 minutes the crew called back saying they were still being told to hold and that they would need to head to divert soon due to fuel constraints. I had also called Flight Plan Scheduling (FPS) requesting assistance. They called back and said that route should have not been used due to no overflight. The overflight had been requested yesterday; but we did not have approval yet. Other personnel also said that we did not have overflight approval. When we looked at the approved routeing document in the computer; it said that Aircraft X did have approval for Country Y so we were all confused. A few minutes later the document was taken down and then modified to say overflight approval pending. Also; that route was the route the FPS was the preferred route. The flight diverted for a planned gas and go.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported a flight was dispatched over foreign airspace without the proper approval and had to divert.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Viking/Turbo-Viking 17-30/31
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: IFR flight plan transporting a passenger. I believe that TRACON X or TRACON Y were our last ATC handoff. The co-pilot was handling communications at the time. We were cleared for a visual approach to RWY XX at ZZZ and began our descent from 4;000 feet. before clearing the ridgeline northeast of the field. We were descending to pattern altitude and setting up for a long straight-in visual approach to RWY XX following a departing aircraft. There was no traffic in the pattern. Winds were reported as variable but relatively light 4-7 kits as I recall. Visibility was unlimited and the sky was clear.During the approach; the co-pilot was calling airspeeds and altitude once we were about 3 miles of the field. He was also broadcasting on CTAF our location. Touchdown was just past the touchdown zone to the left but straddling the centerline. Touchdown was on both mains followed by the nose as the stall horn was sounding. Airspeed at touchdown was 85-90 MPH indicated with full flaps. The plane tended to the left and on the application of rudder to correct the plane made a sharp right turn and was unresponsive to any effort to correct. It left the runway and stopped at a berm approximately 100 feet. off the runway.Looking at the left main; it appears as if the tire became twisted in some way as if something failed after touchdown. No passenger injuries. Damage to left main; nose gear; hard stop and prop. ELT did not transmit.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported experiencing a nose tire failure on landing rollout causing the aircraft to depart the runway surface.