elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
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: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: 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; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to coast out; we received an EICAS message 'LF HYD QTY.' Left hydraulic quantity indicated 0.15RF. Upon discussion with the crew and Dispatch it was decided to divert where a new aircraft was available. We declared an emergency with ATC and diverted. Approximately one hour later we accomplished an overweight landing. Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighters (ARFF) equipment was standing by to inspect the aircraft after exiting the runway. No problems were noted by ARFF and we proceeded to the gate. A new aircraft was prepared and all cargo and catering and passengers were transferred to the new aircraft. We departed for our filed destination one hour and forty minutes later. Overweight Landing: Weight: 327;000 lbs Vertical Speed: 200 FPM Landing: Soft.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B767-300 Left Hydraulic System quantity decreased to 0.15RF so an emergency was declared and the flight diverted to an airport for an overweight landing where another aircraft was available to continue the flight.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 9
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Feel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The airplane my instructor and I were flying had a maintenance issue that caused the replacement of a spring in the rudder linkage system. The original spring was sheared at one end. The replacement spring held up well and the airplane flew about 2 hours after the replacement with another student pilot (I was in the back as a passenger). The airplane was eventually landed for refueling and my instructor and I proceeded to fly in nighttime conditions. After a stop the engine run up checklist (among others) was executed and I verified control free and correct; rudder included. Handling during taxi was normal. After takeoff during pattern left turns the rudder felt normal. Leveling off at cruise at 3500 feet requires removing right rudder pressure needed for coordinated climb out; and that's when I first noticed that the left rudder pedal felt mushy and soft. With no rudder input the airplane would yaw right. Keeping it straight required an amount of left rudder pressure higher than previous flight and yawing to the right would require even more. My instructor confirmed my findings by testing his pedals. Nevertheless rudder authority was not completely lost and we were able to land the airplane without issues. I do not think that it is normal to have the same problem occur twice in a short amount of time; especially since a component was replaced and seemed to operate satisfactorily. The rudder system should be inspected thoroughly. I believe there was some pressure on maintenance staff to keep the airplane flying and generating revenue on one of the first warm and clear spring days of the year. Had we encountered worse weather condition or sustained crosswinds on landing the additional pressure required to slip the aircraft or tracking the runway centerline upon landing might have exceeded pilot's capabilities.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports the failure of a rudder linkage spring twice in one day and believes that the anomaly should be looked into more thoroughly and that the maintenance staff was under some pressure to get the aircraft repaired the first time.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HND.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence; 40
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E L30
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received clearance from LA Center to deviate for weather on ADDEL1 arrival into HND. ATC was very busy seemed to be operating three different frequencies (2 VHF and one UHF) at the same time. We were given clearance to deviate south of course and off the arrival for weather and before we were handed off to Las Vegas Approach we informed LA Center that we would have to slow down for turbulence.As we were deviating off course from the arrival and we had informed LA Center of the problem I thought there would be no issue with us slowing down for turbulence; but Las Vegas Approach felt we should have maintained 250 knots even though we were off the arrival course.As this speed in turbulence would compromise the safety of the Citation Bravo I was flying with the existing turbulence I flew a slower and safer speed (225 knots) south of the arrival corridor and clear of clouds on our arrival into Las Vegas.When we first came on frequency with Las Vegas approach I should have informed them of the fact that we were slower than the posted speed on the arrival due to turbulence in case the information was not passed on from LA Center.




Synopsis: CE550 Captain requests weather deviation on the ADDEL1 arrival to HND and a speed of 225 knots for turbulence from ZLA; which is approved before switching to LAS Approach. The speed information is apparently not passed to Approach by ZLA and the Approach Controller is not happy.
Date: 201506
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: There is so much tar build up on 28L in the first 3;000 feet that it is difficult to see the runway centerline; even in the day.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer believes that the rubber build up on Runway 28L at SFO is excessive and needs to be removed.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: LAV SMOKE master warning message presented on EICAS just before leveling at cruise altitude of 12;000 feet. The Pilot Flying took over radios as I ran the QRH for the LAV SMOKE Master Caution Message. We completed the QRH Checklist and the EICAS Message was no longer present at the conclusion of the checklist. When we established crew communication per the QRH checklist the flight attendant advised us there was no indication of smoke or fire in the lavatory but that the passengers were complaining of heat and an odor in the cabin. We began to run the SMOKE EVACUATION Checklist and asked the Flight Attendant if the odor required evacuation. We were told no. We chose to land at the nearest suitable airport.The approach was standard and we advised ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting) that we would stop on the runway and they would confirm that the outside of the aircraft did not exhibit any signs of smoke or fire. We were advised that the aircraft had no visible signs of smoke or fire. I asked the flight attendant if the cabin was safe to taxi and there were no signs of smoke or fire in the cabin. Tower gave us taxi instructions and we continued to the gate were ARFF inspected the aircraft again for any visible signs of smoke or fire. There were no signs and we deplaned the passengers in a standard fashion. Caused by an indication of LAV SMOKE on the EICAS and corresponding Master Warning.Handed the radio duties to the Pilot Flying (PF) and ran the LAV SMOKE QRH. My initial reaction was to treat the indication as a valid indication of smoke or fire in the lavatory.


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


Synopsis: Embraer ERJ-145 flight crew reported cockpit indications of lavatory smoke; which could not be verified; however a diversion to a nearby suitable airport was initiated.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were approaching ZZZZZ intersection from the west which is a transition onto the ZZZZZ 3 arrival and had received multiple descent clearances out of our cruising altitude of FL350. Eventually we were cleared to cross ZZZZZ at FL230. Flying the ZZZZZ 3 'as published' we would normally cross ZZZZZ1 at FL230 per the STAR and the FMS altitude crossings were set for this. ZZZZZ is 14 miles prior to ZZZZZ1 so crossing ZZZZZ at FL230 requires a change in the FMS and a steeper descent. We acknowledged the clearance and a few minutes later while performing a challenge and response descent checklist and when flying overhead ZZZZZ I realized that we were still on the original profile descent to cross ZZZZZ1 at FL230 and we were crossing ZZZZZ above our assigned altitude of FL230.I attribute this error to our reduced amount of flying in the past 12 months due to the COVID lock down and to distraction by the descent checklist.




Synopsis: Corporate Captain reported an altitude deviation during approach and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Sitting number 1; waiting for [the] Ground Controller to call us for a taxi clearance. We were set up and prepared for a XR taxi and take off. A RJ was at spot 1 and was given a taxi clearance to XR. We then got are clearance to XXL. The RJ started their taxi in front of us getting in line on to [the] taxiway behind three aircraft waiting for clearance to cross runway XL. We started our taxi but the RJ was blocking us from continuing on to [the taxiway]. We stopped. Another RJ was moving up and got a clearance to XXL and to follow us. The Ground Controller gave clearance for aircraft to cross XL; as the traffic started to move and the RJ moved up when they could. I cleared our right; the RJ had just stopped. We continued our taxi referencing the RJ and our left moving on to [the] taxiway and the other RJ on our right they had just stopped to our right. The Ground Controller then told the other RJ to our right to go NOW. Well; they did. We came to an abrupt stop. The other RJ aggressively pulled out in front us and cut the corner to [the] taxiway taxiing though the J lines to [the] gates. I could not get word in to the Ground Controller to ask what had happened. We continued to taxi when it was safe. As we taxied down [the] taxiway. I called 3 times to the Ground Controller; he responded; what do you want. I told him to pull the tapes and that what just happened was not safe. He responded he will look at them. We continued our taxi to XXL. At [the intersection] we had to stop for a widebody on [the] taxiway. We did receive a clearance from Ground Controller to give way to traffic on [the] taxiway. After the widebody had cleared [the intersection] we continued are taxi to XXL.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that while taxiing; a regional jet cut in front causing us to stop abruptly.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Circuit Breaker / Fuse / Thermocouple
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: While removing my flight bag from the flight deck; it is likely that I hit a circuit breaker; breaking off the cap. After removing my flight bag; I turned to pick up my hat; which fell off while removing the bag; and I noticed the white barrel of the circuit breaker; with no cap. Further investigation found the cap in the cup holder below the broken circuit breaker. The exposed white barrel of the circuit breaker had the appearance that it was popped or open. But when the cap was slipped over the circuit breaker; it had the appearance of a normal circuit breaker; clearly proving that the circuit breaker was not popped. I advised Maintenance Control of the broken circuit breaker and that I was the likely cause. I also advised the oncoming crew and boarding agents. I then left for the hotel. As I was removing my flight bag; my hat caught something above my head and began to slide off. It is likely that this distraction diverted my attention from the heavy and cumbersome bag; and in a moment of inattention; allowed it to strike the circuit breaker and thus break off the cap. However; contributing factors would have to include; the heavy and cumbersome flight bag; the poorly designed ingress and egress of the flight bag storage area of the 737 and the awkward and unnatural feat of lifting the heavy bag far out from the body; while in a contorted position; twisted and bent over at the waist; all the while in the vicinity of the circuit breaker panel.




Synopsis: The Captain of a B737 damaged a circuit breaker while removing his flight bag from the cockpit storage area. He noticed the broken stem of the circuit breaker and reported the problem.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 55
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were given an initial heading of 280 or so and altitude of 2;000 FT. We leveled off at 2;000 and then were cleared to climb to 10;000 on a northwesterly heading. At approximately 4;000 FT; the left engine fire warning illuminated. Power was reduced on both engines and the left engine all the way to idle as we leveled at 4;000. Airspeed was reduced to around 200 KIAS. After approximately 30 seconds; the fire light did not go out and the engine was shut down per the checklist. The fire light still did not extinguish. After another 15-30 seconds; the left fire extinguishing agent was discharged. The fire light then went out. We declared an emergency and were vectored east for landing back at our departure airport. Just east of the coastline; we were asked if we were ready to land and we replied in the affirmative. ATC gave us a 240 heading and asked if we were visual with the runway. We replied yes and were cleared for a visual approach; then changed to the Tower and were immediately cleared to land. An uneventful landing was accomplished and we turned off with 2;000 FT of runway remaining. There was no damage to the aircraft and no injuries to the two pilots or two passengers. The problem was determined to be a bad fire warning loop. It was changed and the fire bottle was recharged. We later flew the plane on the original intended mission without incident.




Synopsis: A Lear 55 pilot shut down the left engine and discharged one extinguishing bottle in response to a fire warning shortly after takeoff. The flight returned to the departure airport where Maintenance determined there was no fire and the warning was the result of a faulty fire detection loop.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Big Sky Approach often doesn't take handoffs in a timely manner; this was one instance; where the aircraft may have even been within 2.5 miles of their airspace; descending via. Their excuse is that they don't have to take the hand off until he's 8 miles from the airspace; which on a descend via could put the aircraft in with terrain if we're forced to turn them to miss the airspace. This happens all the time - constantly. It's unsafe; it's unprofessional; it's everything wrong with descend via clearances and Big Sky's attitude toward the NAS; toward safety. I have heard of some facilities that have an automatic handoff acceptance point. It may just be an urban legend; but that would fix this set of problems we have; nearly daily; with Big Sky. Descend via clearances are dangerous to the NAS; we had that concern years ago when they were forced on us at BOI.




Synopsis: Salt Lake Center Controller reported a problem with Big Sky Approach not accepting a hand-off in a timely manner.