elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201904
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: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Bag came in as a smart bag with battery still in its slot. I removed the battery as we were unloading and told the Lead to contact a Supervisor. [Supervisor] came out; took pictures and [wrote] the bag tag number down to return the battery to the passenger. The flight came in from ZZZ1 and we [were] told to do a check for the battery before we load the bag onto the [next] plane. I always check smart bags to ensure the safety of our customers.




Synopsis: Air carrier ramp personnel reported that smart bag was mistakenly transported in cargo with battery attached.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
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 Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: #2 engine lost oil and quantity went to zero. Oil pressure went to zero. High vibration. ECAM action to shutdown engine 2; QRH next; [advised ATC]; advised company landed at nearest suitable airport with fire equipment standing by. No further incident. Secured aircraft; advised dispatch of safe landing. Gathered my crew; customs paperwork; secured overnight hotel and DH out the next day. This was a maintenance ferry flight with no passengers and no FAs; just 2 pilot crew. High vibration just under advisory levels in #2 engine during later part of cruise caused oil line break; leakage; in my opinion. More thorough history check of engine preceding maintenance ferry flight may have shown high vibration on inbound flight that caused that oil line breakage. Oil line fixed for my flight; but vibration not investigated enough.




Synopsis: A330 Captain reported shutting down #2 engine in oceanic airspace after loss of engine oil pressure and quantity.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a normal flight lesson in the traffic pattern with my student; my student landed the plane with full brakes and the brakes locked up. The plane took a hard right toward the edge of the runway and I took the flight controls. With barely any directional control left I was able to keep the plane on the runway long enough to to make a taxi way. We took the taxiway at a fairly high speed and then I was able to regain directional control and bring us to a full stop. No damage was caused to the plane; runway or taxiway; or any signs or lights on the airport. Tower asked if we needed any assistance and I said negative just to taxi back to the ramp.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported during student landing; the aircraft landed with brakes applied fully; causing the instructor to assume control to keep the aircraft on the runway and safely finish the landing.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGLL.Tower, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower EGLL
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer; Relief Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On initial climb out of EGLL we departed runway 9R on SID Southampton 3J. Initial altitude given for the SID is 6000 feet 6000 feet was properly set in the MCP. My position in the cockpit was that of the relief pilot. As we climbed out of 5100 feet I reminded the flying pilots the Transition Altitude would be 6000 feet as per the SID. This reminder inadvertently prompted the flying pilots to reset the altimeters before leaving TL6000 resulting in an altitude deviation of 500 feet once leveled off. We were given a climb clearance within 90 seconds after level off with no further altitude deviation. There was no comment from ATC. As we climbed out the crew talked about the discrepancy and later reviewed the standard procedure of waiting to be cleared above TL6000 to reset the altimeter. There was no traffic or safety issue due to the slight deviation.


Second narrative: On takeoff out of EGLL climbing through 4500 feet when cleared to 6000 feet on SID Southampton 3J FO called 'transition altitude is 6000' which prompted flying FO and Myself to reset Altimeters to 29.92 and we leveled at 6000. However; that was incorrect. We do not set 29.92 until cleared to climb above 6000. My FO was on first trip after IOE so I was watching him closely as it was his first flying leg with me and we were engaging VNAV and retracting flaps; I was doing after takeoff checklist and was talking to Departure Control. So with all that going on when IRO made call I didn't think and thought I had failed to set the altimeter properly and automatically reset it. The local altimeter was at 1037 that day so when we reset to 29.92 it was an exceptionally large difference of approximately 500 feet. The controller did not say anything but we would have been off by the 500 feet and he cleared us higher shortly thereafter.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reports setting QNE too early departing EGLL resulting in a level off at FL060 which is 500 feet above the assigned altitude of 6;000 feet. ATC does not comment.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in the center seat performing the IRO duties during the departure phase leaving an Asian airport.  While on the SID we were given a clearance to climb to 3;900 meters and to follow the SID.  Performing the pilot position that converts meters to feet; I immediately went to the conversion chart and momentarily disassociated myself from what was actually being done by the 2 front seat pilots. After I converted meters to feet and the monitoring pilot was done communicating with the controller; I called out the cleared altitude in feet.  The miscommunication can be better explained by the 2 flying pilots as I didn't hear what was actually being said while doing the meters to feet conversion.




Synopsis: An International Relief Officer misread the meters to feet conversion chart which resulted in an altitude deviation.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were on the JIIMS2 arrival into PHL descending through 17500 FT with LNAV/VNAV engaged with a clearance to cross 'RAADS' intersection at 15000 FT.  Our decent rate was standard approx 2000 FT/min 3 deg.  Suddenly traffic directly in front of us showed on TCAS. The controller pointed the traffic out to us and said the traffic just appeared to do a 360.  I started to shallow the descent since the traffic was below us when the controller assigned us a heading of 360 for traffic.  Less than a split second later the TCAS gave us a Resolution Advisory (RA) with a steep descent which I complied with immediately and simultaneously complied with the new heading assignment given by the controller. Once we heard the 'Clear of Conflict' we advised the controller and he cleared us direct to JIIMS intersection.  We never went below our crossing altitude given of 15000 FT during the Traffic Advisory (TA)/RA descent for this traffic which we never saw but could have been a Drone since maneuvering at an altitude of approx 17;500 FT does not make any sense and the controller was not in contact with this traffic.




Synopsis: Pilot describes a situation where they are in a descent and get a RA at the same time the Controller issues traffic.  They descend as the RA suggests and turn to a heading issued by the Controller.  Traffic is not seen but suggested to be a drone by the pilot.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
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: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About an hour after takeoff we noticed the left outer tank was 1;000 LBS less than the right outer tank we observed the tank quantity and it was decreasing; we then accomplished the checklist and since we couldn't verify where the fuel was going we suspected a fuel leak. The checklist advised us to land ASAP; we were about 80 miles south of a major airport at the time and we chose that as our diversion airport. Maintenance confirmed that the valve in the left outer tank was leaking.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: An A300 crew diverted for a suspected fuel leak and after landing; maintenance discovered a fuel leak in the left outer tank valve.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During base leg to visual approach; we had a flap fail ICAS message after selecting flaps 9. There was no flap movement...we ran the Flap Fail QRH; declared an emergency; and executed a no flap landing which was completed uneventfully.




Synopsis: EMB 145-XR F/O reported 'Flaps Fail' ICAS on approach with no flap movement. An emergency was declared and a normal landing ensued.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying from ZZZ toward my destination of ZZZ1 and was performing an engine gauge scan. I looked up and saw a white glider directly ahead; approaching in the opposite direction. The glider immediately entered a right bank and climb; and I took evasive action as well with a right turn. We missed each other by 100 feet. I immediately reported the close call to TRACON; who simply replied that they did not receive any reports of gliders in that area. The remainder of the flight was uneventful.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported NMAC during cruise with an unreported glider. TRACON had no reported gliders in the area.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the feed sector for DCA when the event happened. I feed the controller one nonstandard aircraft but I [coordinated] it before handoff and it was approved. I do not know why the Controller set the sequence he did however it was clearly not going to work. When Aircraft X said they were too high for the approach 2 miles out flying a 250 heading at 3;000 feet the final Controller appeared stunned. I suggested a 270 heading to him which the Controller did not like. He chose a heading of 160 directly back into the final with aircraft on the final out to 25 DME. I then made my opinion clearer that a 270 heading is what we needed and I was again written off.I would have spoke up sooner when I saw the situation developing.




Synopsis: PCT Controller reports of coordination problem between two controllers which leads to aircraft having to be re-sequenced.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CMA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Tower CMA
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was conducting a private flight in my aircraft.  I had utilized VFR flight following and was handed off to Tower.   I heard numerous bangs in quick succession. They were alarming and my wife whom was in the front passenger seat abruptly turned to me and exclaimed in a concerned tone; 'what was that'? I too was extremely concerned and began checking all aircraft systems. Fortunately; all systems were functioning and I continued the approach to an uneventful landing. Upon examination of the aircraft post-landing; I noted damage to the fairing protruding from the underwing of the right main landing gear. Although I did not see what caused the damage; I am certain the damage was not present before the return flight due to my preflight inspection. I surmise the aircraft was struck by an unmanned aerial system as there were no signs of blood or feathers consistent with a bird strike.




Synopsis: A General Aviation pilot reported hearing banging noises on final approach and upon inspecting the aircraft after landing saw damage and believes it was caused by colliding with a UAV.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approach turned a 757 in front of us when on final. We were assigned 160 to the FAF and felt the separation was less than desirable. As a crew we both expressed concern with the spacing of us and the 757. When handed off to tower I asked to slow down to increase separation. Tower then asked what speed I was assigned. I said 160 to the FAF. There was no response.We encountered wake turbulence on short final with strong rolling moments. It was manageable; but not desirable. I got on the radios after and told ATC about the wake turbulence and that's why we requested slower. Tower said it was out of their hands and Approach was responsible. Tower did not seem the least bit concerned for our safety when I asked for the slower speed. It is troubling and that's why I'm writing this report. While we were not in any danger; the lack of concern for our requests bothers me. We could execute a go-around or be more persistent with our request to slow down.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to LAX in trail of a B757. Reporter felt ATC was unresponsive to his concerns.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While completing approach and landing to ILS; TE (Trailing Edge) FLAP DISAGREE EICAS and light appeared while going from flaps 20 to 25. At approximately 1500 ft while slowing to Vref20 (146 KIAS) I called for flaps 25. The EICAS message and light came on indicating a disagree. The Before Landing checklist was complete to final flaps. I was stable at 146; on the glideslope with the runway in sight and cleared to land. We decided to continue the approach as the safest course of action due to the speed and stability of the aircraft; as well as the weather and length of runway available. We did not move the flaps at all after landing. Upon ramp connecting the GPU; the message went away; the flap indicator went to 25; and all indications of the issue went away. Maintenance reported no problems found.


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


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported the flaps disagree light illuminated while the flaps were moved from 20 to 25 degrees. All indications went to normal when a GPU was connected on the ramp.