elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Vertical Stabilizer/Fin
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arriving at the parking spot X the mechanic noticed engine two tail was missing parts and the metal skin looked burned. The aircraft was AOG [Aircraft On Ground]. When we parked at the parking spot the mechanic came upstairs to the cabin and notified us off the incident. [The failure may have occurred] when we took off on a Typhoon out off ZZZ.[Suggest to] delay the flight a few hours so we won't have to fly in Hurricane and Typhoons.




Synopsis: Pilot reported mechanic found missing parts from vertical fin and number two engine post flight.
Date: 201912
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Wheel
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Manuals; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: Aircraft in ZZZ required 2 nose wheel tire assembly replacements due to a crew write up. The write up stated that on takeoff roll; the nose wheel vibrated; 70 kts. through nose wheel retract. History on the nose gear assembly revealed that the right-hand nose tire was replaced in ZZZ1 due to wear.As a precaution; ZZZ technicians decided to replace both nose tires. IPC 32-45-21-05; item 001L; states that part #2607825-2 is effective for the aircraft. This part number was not available in ZZZ. Part number C20637000 was available. In the side notes of IPC 32-45-21-05; item 001L; it states in the 'miscellaneous data' section that part number C20637000 is effective for the aircraft. When technicians attempted to install the nose tire (C20637000); the tire assembly would not sit flush on the axle. This resulted in not enough axle thread to be exposed to properly install the main nut to secure the tire assembly. Several issues came about from this LOSA observation. First; the IPC states that C20637000 is effective for this aircraft. The tire assembly is not a proper fit. Second; the 'miscellaneous data' section in the IPC references that part number C20637000 is not interchangeable for P-8 aircrafts. What do they mean by P-8 aircraft? Third; if part number C20637000 is effective for this aircraft per the IPC; the tire assembly has 'MAX' stenciled on the sidewall of the tire. This could potentially cause confusion to the flight crews since [the] aircraft is a 737-900ER. Fourth; since the 737MAX aircraft are currently out of service; why are MAX tires being inventoried in the serviceable racks in the terminal areas?




Synopsis: Technician reported conflicting information in the IPC with regards to effectiveness of Nose Wheel assemblies authorized for installation on aircraft.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BDU.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: CTAF BDU
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After landing at BDU I received a radio call from a glider pilot. Though he wasn't sure I was the aircraft; he said we had a near miss; even though he said he did not see the other aircraft; he heard it and that I had passed about 100 FT beneath him. I never saw his aircraft. I had been keeping a lookout and watching for other aircraft on my G500 (TIS). I asked if he had a transponder; and he said no because he was a glider. If I was the aircraft that nearly collided with this glider; it was my responsibility to see and avoid him. That said; it is very difficult to spot gliders in the Boulder; CO; area due to terrain; size and flight characteristics. While this event has made me more aware of the potential conflicts with gliders in vicinity of the Boulder airport; and I intend to be even more vigilant in my visual scan; I would suggest that it would be even more helpful if the FAA encouraged gliders to carry transponders given the greater use of TCAS; TIS and ADS-B traffic alerting.




Synopsis: C310 pilot is informed after landing that he may have been involved in a NMAC with a glider. The glider pilot believes that the reporters aircraft passed 100 FT beneath him although he only heard the aircraft pass.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During our initial climbout between fixes; we experienced a WING ANTI-ICE LEAK master warning red CAS message. Note: we were in thunderstorm conditions within icing parameters. When issued a climb; finally after being level for several miles at 6;000 feet MSL; we went back to CLIMB POWER and First Officer initiated a climb at a rate of approximately 4;000 feet/minute to help get out of the weather. Shortly thereafter; we received the red message. Pilot in Command elected to level off at approximately 12;000 feet MSL; where the heavy rain still existed. A divert was executed through Departure. We were vectored for Converging ILS X RWY XX at divert airport. This report is designed to draw attention to a problem that keeps happening to the Challenger 350S. The same experience happened [on a prior date] which resulted in a diversion. Other crews are talking about the same issue happening to them. Hopefully this will help get more attention to this situation.




Synopsis: Challenger 350 pilot reported a wing anti-ice leak master warning within icing parameters resulting in a divert to an unscheduled airport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
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 / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the sectors 73/53/54 combined with a low to average traffic complexity. I looked to the northeastern section of my sector which is adjacent to Sector 74 (Charleston sector); this sector was combined with Sector 71 (Flourence). I observed a PVD on my scope with the callsign of Air Carrier X. The aircraft was inside my sector boundary and I noticed the altitude of the aircraft leaving 11;000 FT climbing to FL230 in the Data Block. I was working with a RADAR Associate at the time of the incident. I ask the RADAR Associate if they had received a point out on the aircraft and their answer was no. Have the controller working Sector 71/74 complete his pointout by calling the sector and advising them he will be climbing aircraft in their airspace so that safety is not compromised.




Synopsis: ZJX Controller described an airspace infraction when an adjacent sector manipulated the data block without any verbal coordination.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IWA.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D IWA
ATC / advisory: Tower IWA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Busy airport traffic pattern on [my] lesson solo. Multiple aircraft in traffic pattern of several different types. I was instructed to make left base for Runway 30L. I started to turn base without being cleared to land. Two aircraft; including myself and another aircraft which was on a very extended downwind south of the delta nearly 5 miles south of where I was turning 'base'; were instructed to make a right turn to re-enter the downwind to give landing space to an air carrier. I had never heard this command but interpreted it to mean to make a 360 back into the traffic pattern. Aircraft Y in front of me was given the instruction first and immediately started their turn to the right. When I was given the instruction; I waited to try to ask Gateway Tower what they meant; but the frequency was too busy. I decided to start the turn to the right to make a 360 to re-enter the downwind. Unfortunately; my slow thinking led to me making a turn at the same time that the aircraft in front of me was already almost finished with their turn. This resulted in a near head-on collision. The other aircraft fortunately realized this; pulled up and turned to their right promptly. I saw the aircraft fly over me and assumed it was an aircraft coming south from the gap with an odd pattern entry. Although a bit flustered; I was able to land the airplane and thought of it as a bad coincidence. The flight instructor on-board the other aircraft in the incident; approached me after my flight and asked to discuss once I returned. We discussed the incident and my flight instructor who was not on-board my solo flight; was also notified and joined us in the debrief.




Synopsis: Student pilot reported confusion over ATC instructions during a solo flight in the traffic pattern. The pilot delayed a turn which resulted in a NMAC.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After landing in EWR; on runway 4R; we were holding short of 4L on K. Aircraft X was cleared for take off 4L; and then tower told us (Aircraft Y) to cross 4L and contact ground control. Aircraft X was already up to speed and well past (I'm guessing) taxiway N or C. My First Officer read back the crossing instructions but I declined to move. After Aircraft X passed our intersection; I crossed and we switched to ground control. At no point did any part of my aircraft cross the hold short line until after the departing aircraft was well off the ground. Tower and ground were very busy; and I'm not sure they even noticed it. We taxied to the gate with ground. I attempted to call the tower via phone multiple times once off duty; but there was consistently no answer. Coordinating with Dispatch; I obtained a different phone number for their ground control/ops; and I gave them my name and phone number. At the time of this report; I am still waiting for [them] to call me back. I also emailed our Chief Pilot to inform her of the incident.


Second narrative: Supervisor asked me to relieve local control. I was given a briefing and in the briefing I thought I heard the relieving controller say that he was rolling with a heavy and I could cross at any time. My first transmission was to Aircraft Y; holding short of runway 4L at taxiway K to cross runway 4L; my second transmission was to Aircraft Z; holding short of runway 4L at taxiway m to cross runway 4L. Neither aircraft moved and then I looked up and saw Aircraft X; nose up right before taxiway J. Me not scanning the full runway before issuing the crossing is what led up to the event. I just took the relieving controller's word for it that I could cross.Be sure to fully scan the runway before issuing a clearance to cross.


Synopsis: While a controller change was happening; the Local Controller reported crossing two aircraft and did not observe a departing aircraft on the runway. The ERJ170 Captain reported they did not move because they saw the departing aircraft.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.TRACON, FO
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The A Flight Attendant called me on the galley phone an asked me to come to the front of the cabin. Once I walked to the front; she told me to get my FAM [Flight Attendant Manual] because we were going to have to do a planned [emergency] landing because the pilots had to shut one engine off for some particular reason. She told me that we were more than likely not going to have to evacuate the plane; but since it was snowing; the Captain said we should take the necessary precautions. I rushed to the back of the cabin; went into my overnight bag and pulled out my FAM. I then pulled out my Planned Land Evacuation Checklist. The A Flight Attendant gave me a short briefing on how we would go about this. I then read the planned land evacuation list; as she demonstrated in the aisle. Then we both did a walk through to make sure everyone had it. We made sure we briefed those who couldn't bend down as far; those with children next to them; and those with lap children especially. I then walked through the cabin to collect trash and sharp objects to make sure it was safe. I then appointed two ABP'S and briefed them on the doors. They repeated back to me what I need them to do just for reassurance. I prepared the galley for landing; although nothing was out of place because we never got up out of our seats in the first place. I sat in my jumpseat and waited for the commands. The Captain said; 'BRACE! BRACE!' so the A flight attendant and I yelled; 'BRACE! BRACE! HEADS DOWN STAY DOWN!' We repeated this all the way until the plane came to a complete stop. The passengers were very cooperative throughout the whole landing as well as calm.




Synopsis: EMB170 Flight Attendant describes the cabin preparations for an emergency landing after an engine failure shortly after becoming airborne.
Date: 201409
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
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: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon inputting flight plan FMS would not recognize RST; checked data base date and was up to date. Swapped data base still no RST; swapped back to current database and called maintenance. FMS Maintenance looked at it and notified database personnel that is was not in there and said it would have to be fixed in next update and they could not do anything at that time. I checked the FOM which states: do not write up nav data errors; report errors to ....etc. I checked our charts in EFB which were up to date; both ILS approaches were available and RST VOR was in database and Wx was good. Talked about having to manually tune ILS and no LNAV for missed approach. FO said he was OK but I feel I may have not opened up the conversation enough to his full thought. After landing in RST notified maintenance. After arriving at hotel; I started to email nav data base personnel about error and researched the FOM a little more and realized I had not checked the aircraft specific data base which is where the error was; which I confirmed with write up by maintenance in AML [wrong aircraft type database loaded]. In hindsight I should have taken more time in researching problem and used better CRM by giving the FO more opportunity to get his thoughts. My failure to thoroughly research the problem and to make AML write up.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported discovering that the FMC database does not contain approaches for the destination airport; although the database appears to be current. The EFB contains the necessary approaches and the flight departs without a logbook write-up in compliance with FOM procedures for database errors. Maintenance discovers that the database loaded was for a different fleet type that does not operate into this airport.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 2
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: MEL's 34-2X-XX No 1 radio altimeter; 34-1X-XX Windshear Detection; 46-X-XX OPC Computer. MEL 25-XX-XX. Left late due to weight restrictions. The alternate was changed and cargo removed to allow for standby Passengers. Captain was Pilot Flying. Crew briefed MEL 34-2X-XX; noting that the flight director would not be used. Captain did not brief that autopilot would turn off when approach was selected. On arrival; airport switched arrival and runway due to frontal passage. Briefed new arrival and approach. Multiple messages from Dispatch on arrival for alternate info and landing data due to OPC inoperative (MEL 46-X-XX). We are now computed to be 1;000 pounds overweight for landing due to shortened route. Captain chose to lower landing gear at 9;000 feet on arrival. When slowed to 180 knots; selected flaps 15 at 20 miles out to increase drag. Wind was from the south; 45 knot crosswind in heavy rain. Outside of FAF; Pilot Flying (PF) selected VOR/ILS on nav select switch. ILS data was looking good and PF selected Approach Mode on MCP. Upon selection; flight directors went away and autopilot turned off. PF turned on autopilot B after diagnosing problem. During the time it took to select AP B; aircraft drifted right of course due to 45 knot crosswind. Executed missed approach. Transferred control to First Officer (FO) for ILS. Landed uneventfully.


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


Synopsis: B737 crew with multiple MEL's affecting Primary Flight Display and Autopilot executed a missed approach due to Autopilot disconnect and course deviation due to a strong crosswind. Captain transferred control to First Officer for landing.