elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I wrote-up the rudder bias system this morning for failing the preflight test. Maintenance Control concurred and the aircraft was sent in. Less than 2 minutes after we parked; Contract Maintenance came out to the plane. I explained the problem to him. After he left both myself and my co-captain; noted that he seemed to take the issue personally. Within 5 minutes he was back in the plane; telling us that it had a [test flight] just last week. We both felt he was pushing us; and went so far as to say; 'all I will do is take it out and run it up. If there is movement; I will sign it off.' He stated there was no guidance from Cessna on how much movement. 43 other Sovereigns give a strong rudder bias kick at 50% N1; and this airplane gave nothing until above 60%. In addition; while the engines seemed to spool up normally; the throttles appeared to be advanced much farther forward to achieve 50% or even 60% N1; better than halfway to the cruise detent. It appears to me that something is not correct and needs to be addressed; however I fear that this technician is just going to sign it off. I told the mechanic that I would not fly this plane in this condition. I reported the issue to the Assistant Chief Pilot. He passed it on to the maintenance air boss. He later informed me that this was escalated. This was pushback from an outside vendor who indicated that he was going to sign off the airplane without further investigation. I have seen many fixes from outside vendors that are marginal at best! And when they fail; in-house maintenance who is trained on our aircraft; complete a proper fix to the issue. In my opinion; more in-house maintenance personnel and less outside; marginally trained mechanic will help fix this 800 pound gorilla called Maintenance.




Synopsis: CE-680 Captain reported the aircraft failed the Rudder Bias System Test.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Lubrication Oil
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL350 we noticed the right engine oil quantity was four quarts and going down after being even. All other indications were normal. Not knowing if it was an indicator malfunction or an actual oil loss we pulled out the QRH talked about suitable airports and informed Dispatch. The engine oil temperature kept increasing and the oil pressure getting lower. I declared an emergency and headed for ZZZ. In accordance with the QRH I shut down the right engine. We requested the equipment and prepared for a single engine landing. We informed Dispatch and the flight attendants and made a PA announcement. I did not feel we needed to prep the cabin. After landing; the fire department checks the brakes for temperature readings.


Second narrative: After arriving a little late; we did a quick turn and left only four minutes late. Aircraft was in cruise flight when it was noted oil quantity was four quarts in the right engine. Left was still indicating eleven quarts as were both engines in cruise on previous leg. By the time the Captain had sent a note to Maintenance; oil had dropped to zero quantity. We declared an emergency and decided to land at ZZZ which was directly below us. We continued to monitor oil pressure; which began to slowly decrease. We pulled out the low oil pressure check list and then the severe engine damage checklist; to shut the engine down before the engine was damaged. Captain notified Dispatch; flight attendances and passengers of diversion. We briefed approach and single engine go around. I continued to fly aircraft to runway in ZZZ and emergency equipment followed us to a safe location. They inspected brakes and found them cool enough for us to proceed to gate.


Synopsis: A B757 flight lost right engine oil quantity at FL350; followed by loss of oil pressure and rising temperature. The engine was shut down and the flight diverted to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PSP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PSP
ATC / advisory: Tower PSP
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were flying a visual RNAV 31L approach to PSP. The weather was VFR. The winds on the runway were 350 at 7 kts. There was moderate turbulence during the entire approach. The First Officer (FO) and I had thoroughly briefed the approach and weather conditions. On the way down final; we had a quartering tailwind at between 15-17 kts. The airplane was fully configured and on speed by 1;500 feet. We had a visual on the runway; and were using the RNAV approach as backup. Approximately at 400 feet; we received a sink rate GPWS alert. I shallowed the descent. On short final there was another momentary sink rate call from GPWS. The FO stated later that the descent rate was never more than 1;000 fpm. As we were in the flare; in the touchdown zone; we got a GPWS too low terrain call. There was obviously conflicting information. Since we were on the right runway; fully configured and stable; I landed the airplane. The landing was uneventful. When we arrived at the gate; we called Maintenance and wrote up the GPWS system. Looking at the maintenance history; there had been 2 previous GPWS write ups within 4 days.


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


Synopsis: A319 flight crew landed at PSP on 31R while dealing with shifting gusty winds and a malfunctioning GPWS that gave them confusing warnings.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On arrival in Denver just prior to extending the gear we encountered turbulence that I would best describe as moderate wake. The conditions were mostly clear. We were in the clear with a smooth ride before and after two bumps in rapid succession. There were no adverse reports on the ATIS. We soon after got a call from the cabin that one of the flight attendants had hit and cut her head. I continued flying and took over ATC while the First Officer coordinated to have paramedics meet the flight. We continued with an uneventful landing. The Flight Attendant was transported to have the cut treated.Later while discussing the event I had mistakenly recalled that injury was part of the [company] definition of severe turbulence. At that busy time and as the aircraft was scheduled to depart I made the decision out of abundance of caution and a mistaken recollection to write the aircraft up. However after later reviewing the manual I discovered my mistake and the encounter was in fact moderate. ATC was not notified because: first; neither one of us felt it to be anything more than moderate and a wake encounter (the severe write up only coming from a mistaken recollection and out of an abundance of caution); and second the time element with added duties of coordinating paramedics and configuring with the encounter taking place just outside the marker.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a wake vortex encounter on arrival into DEN that resulted in a Flight Attendant injury.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am submitting this report today due to the fact that I did not actually see the event as I was in the process of other duties. However when I immediately became aware of the situation; I queried the local controller and was told it was nothing more than the Cessna was turning off the runway midfield and the SR22 crossed the threshold as the Cessna was turning off. I felt that I was not getting the full story; but being I did not see the event; I had to take the controller at his word. I just today found out today when I reported for duty; that the SR22 pilot came into the facility and went to the supervisor and said he had actually missed the Cessna by 30-50 feet. In the original report I had put; due to what I was told by the controller; that it was an insignificant event; when it now appears it was indeed a significant event; and a very very close call; that indeed the Cessna was still on his roll out and the SR22 had passed alongside the Cessna airborne as he was told by the local controller he; at his request; could land long. This is being submitted by me today as it appears I was lied to by the local controller and do not want the report to appear as though I was trying to cover up this mishap.  To be honest; this has been an ongoing occurrence with this controller. This is at least the 5th incident with [this person] only 2 years of being checked out; but now with [these reports] there are no consequences until there is a death.




Synopsis: A Tower Controller reported that the Local Controller did not tell the truth about a close call relating to an aircraft exiting a runway with an arrival landing the same runway.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SDF.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SDF
ATC / advisory: Tower SDF
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We flew a right downwind for [Runway] 35R east of the field; on a heading of about 180. We were given a clearance to descend to 3;000 (from 4;000) abeam of the FAF. A [wide body aircraft] was coming up from the southeast and it appeared we would be following him. As he passed abeam us (approximately 2 miles away) Approach asked us if we had him in sight. I checked with the First Officer (pilot flying) and he nodded his head yes (I knew we saw him; I was checking to see if he was ok with accepting the incipient visual approach). I advised the Controller we had the [traffic]; and he said 'Cleared for the visual to 35R; turn right to heading 320.' This surprised me (us) because to be 'cleared for the visual' meant we had control of our heading and altitude. The turn to 320 resulted in an unacceptably shallow angle to join the final AND placed us closer behind the [traffic] than we liked. I advised the Controller we would need to turn back to the left some (about 290 heading) to join the final; and he said; 'That's ok; I am just required to give you that [320] heading.' To be fair; the 290 heading pointed us directly at traffic landing on [Runway] 35L so I understand the concern there. Nonetheless; we needed the 290 heading to properly join our final. We turned final for [Runway] 35R with no overshoot. This is all background information for this: We would never have turned in that close to the other aircraft if it were up to us. I think the controller was comfortable with it because of the new RECAT procedures. As the First Officer began his flare at 50 FT we encountered significant wake turbulence from the [preceding wide body aircraft]. We rolled left and then right and just as we both were about to call 'go around' the rolling stopped. The touchdown was normal and at the thousand foot markers. In summary; had we been allowed to fly a visual approach as is normal; where we choose the track and altitude; we would have gone out another mile or two and would not have had a wake turbulence encounter in the flare. Saying 'Cleared for the visual' and then assigning a heading is contradictory; in my opinion. Our approach was stable in all respects until the wake turbulence encounter at about 50 FT.




Synopsis: A widebody Captain reported encountering wake turbulance just before landing (50 FT AGL) in trail of another widebody.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Central Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ZZZ Hangar X; day shift; Aircraft X. Reference ZZZ [Routine Overnight Layover Check Work]. Non-routine for [Logbook Deferral Sheet] XXXXXXX. Working DFDAU (Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit) fault. Replaced DFDAU IAW (In Accordance With) AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) 31-XX-XX. Installation was complete except for [the] very last step of installation. I wrote a separate item on non-routine XXXXXXX; Item Number 5 on page 2 of 3. I wrote that; per AMM 31-XX-XX-XXX Step F (3); [one] must accomplish verification of aircraft number on the DFDAU initialization page.Is this to be accomplished on the DFDAU computer; or done through the DFDAU page on the MCDU (Multipurpose Control and Display Unit)? The AMM steps were unclear and did not match what we were seeing on the aircraft. At [the] end of shift; I had called [Operations Control] for guidance. They were unsure how to advise us to proceed; and we were waiting to hear back from them. That is why I made sure to write a separate item for it. When I came in the next day; Aircraft X was green and being delivered to the terminal for revenue service. I inquired how the open item was completed because I wanted to know for future reference. After trying to get a solid answer; no one in avionics said they worked it; and Management could not give me an answer either.[The] Maintenance Supervisor was [the] acting Supervisor on [today] and was also in [tomorrow]. I asked him how it had been completed. He told me someone had found an AMM reference that covered it; and he asked an afternoon shift Crew Chief to go look at it. It was at that point I decided to follow up and check the paperwork once it had been entered into AirVault. I was able to see it in AirVault today. That is when I found Item 5 of non-routine XXXXXXX to still be open/not signed for.This should've been caught when non-routine XXXXXXX was audited prior to aircraft release. Better communication between Maintenance and Supervision. Who was responsible for knowing that this issue was still open? The non-routine should not have passed audit.




Synopsis: Technician reported that an open maintenance item was overlooked on audit and the aircraft was delivered to the terminal for revenue service.
Date: 201908
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Mechanic drained hydraulic fluid in the air with belt conveyor down. He could not raise the belt to put hydraulic fluid in system so he lowered the rack with a tall stand under the front drum of the belt conveyor. He did not use the factory supports used and when he was filling the hydraulic fluid the tall stand rolled off the drum and the conveyor fell just missing crushing his arm.




Synopsis: Mechanic reported that an improper procedure was used when servicing a belt conveyor; resulting in a risk of injury.
Date: 201704
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: INS / IRS / IRU
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In climb out; my Captain was lowering his sun visor in anticipation of climbing through clouds and mistakenly turned off our Inertial Reference 1 (IR1) just like what was described in [a recent company] newsletter. QRH procedures were followed; and we arrested the climb and requested FL280 as final to avoid RVSM airspace. Options were discussed using great CRM and Dispatch was informed. We were flying to [a destination] where the weather was VFR and we kept a constant plan in case of emergency descent since we lost EGPWS. This is mostly an informational report since it is a known problem so that these incidents can be tracked and a fix may be found to this known risk.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported the Captain inadvertently turned off Inertial Reference system #1 while deploying the sun visor.
Date: 201708
Location: TIST.Airport, VI
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Access to necessary flight planning equipment is non-existent. Could not access any app/function on the iPad which we normally use for planning flights. T-Mobile connection showed 4 bars but nothing would ever load. There is no acceptable wireless connection to use either. This means that I was not able to access WSI weather briefing; Jepp Pro for enroute concerns; no [system] updates; no flight plan download; no way of releasing the flight or certifying fit for duty. Falling back on the multitude of separate and manual procedures is unacceptable and unsafe when we've come to rely upon these everyday tools for planning and decision making. Moreover; our company has now designed our operation to rely upon this iPad and the tools we use in it every day. TIST also lacks any sort of flight planning room/facility. We are expected to flight plan at the check in counter in front of all the passengers.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported he was unable to update his iPad prior to departure from TIST.
Date: 202106
Location: PTKK.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Preflight planning
ATC / advisory: CTAF PTKK
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The night flights into PTKK should be halted as soon as possible due to dangerous situation. PAPIs on both ends of the runway are inoperative according to the NOTAMs; and have been for months. The runway is located in an area with very little illumination.  According to Naval aviators very similar to landing on a carrier at night. There is no electronic means of glidepath guidance using the RNAV (GPS) Runway 4 past HIMAX. There has been a fatal accident due to lack of glide slope information approximately 3 years ago. With the lack of glide slope; and PAPIs I believe this is the highest risk airport in the system during night operations and should be stopped as soon as possible.




Synopsis: Pilot reported the approach lacks glidepath guidance and currently the PAPI system is NOTAM'd out of service until August.