elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: A C525 checked on in the vicinity of PEKON Intersection at FL450; inappropriate for direction. I am required to have all aircraft into AUS terminal cross 65 east of WEEED Intersection at FL300 the C525 was landing 3R; and I descended him to FL380 to go under crossing traffic at FL400 and advised the pilot to expect to cross 60 east of WEEED at FL300. The pilot refused the descent and advised he was unable the clearance for weather. I advised no precipitation observed but I could approve a left deviation. I advised the Supervisor and gave the pilot the supervisor desk phone number. The pilot refused the revised route because he needed the most direct route and insisted he could not descend for weather. By now I turned the overflight aircraft off course and the C525 had still not descended. I again stated the restrictions and that it was an ATC requirement. The pilot finally descended. I do not believe that the Supervisor filed a Pilot Deviation but believe he should have. THIS IS UNSAFE AND SAFETY IS AN ISSUE. Procedures are already in effect and pilots are supposedly required to follow ATC instructions!




Synopsis: ZHU Controller described a descent refusal by an aircraft at FL450 because of weather conditions; the aircraft was then issued a course deviation.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAY.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C DAY
ATC / advisory: Tower DAY
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were inbound to DAY; the ATIS was visibility 10 miles 700 broken 11;000 feet overcast ILS 6L and RNAV 6R. 6R was closer to the FBO; so we briefed the RNAV 6R.Columbus Approach was talking to several aircraft landing at different airports; we heard a partially blocked transmission of weather.we didn't have time to clarify what airport the weather was for; but the minimums for RNAV 6R is 1 mile so we knew we were alright to continue the approach.MDA for us is 1;520 feet. As we were passing through 1;700 feet to level at 1;600 feet the controller gave us a low altitude alert. I'm not sure why we got the alert we were more than 100 feet. above minimums andwe had a shallow descent rate.In the future in a situation like this I will just do the ILS.




Synopsis: CE-560XL Captain reported getting a low altitude alert warning from the Tower even though he felt they were on the profile with a low descent rate.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At the gate just prior to pushback; passengers in the aft section reported odor (APU bleed on). The Flight Attendant reported eyes burning and visual mist. The First Officer immediately turned APU Air OFF; removed passengers and crew to gate area; notified Dispatcher. [We] called Operations to have passenger supervisor check on passengers in gate area. After maintenance cleared aircraft as safe; passengers returned to remove carry-on [and] verbal report by flight/cabin crew to Maintenance. Completed Aircraft Cabin Air Quality Report and FDML entry. Changed aircraft to A-320 and completed uneventful flight to destination.




Synopsis: An A321 at the gate with APU Air and Packs ON developed an aft cabin odor and mist reported by the Flight Attendant and aft cabin passengers. The aircraft was evacuated and the flight continued on another aircraft.
Date: 201708
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: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I need help with this potential serious safety risk that has been brought to my attention from both the aircraft mechanics and the garage mechanics. [Company] has changed the AS (Air Start Units) couplers from the old 16 ball to a new 8 ball coupler. There are several safety issues with the new coupler.1. The nuts on the hose clamps need to be cut and filed after the clamp is torqued down as they are cutting employees hands as they attach and detach the AS hoses. What we are asking for is to have the excess bolts cut and filed.2. The aft hose clamp is too big and cannot be torqued down; as you run out of treads and it spins on the hose. Now you have 400 degree air at 90 to 400 PPM (Pounds per Minute) blowing through a silicone rubber hose that is even more slippery when at high temp being held in place by only 1 clamp. If that clamp fails now you have the potential for a serious injury or damage to an aircraft.  The simple fix would be use a smaller clamp on the aft flange (the same size as the forward clamp would work). Then you could correctly torque it and securely attach the hose at a second point. 3. The clamps at the coupler have a nylon insert in the nut; but I think it would be better to use a steel nut on the clamp just like the clamp where the hose connects to the truck The fixes are easy; but there seems to be a big resistance from management/engineering to apply the suggested resolutions.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported new hose clamps have been installed on air start units that are potentially a safety risk.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: A PC12 checked on and was issued the precipitation and handed off to a neighboring Controller. The Controller noticed aircraft had rapid descent and told me I think I may have a problem. He told me the aircraft was level at 21;000 and now was showing XXX and he switched to DARC and altitude showed 11;500. I went to Operations Manager in Charge (OMIC) and told him I think I have an aircraft going down and told him to look at our sector; and that it was the PC12; assigned 21;000 but now in rapid descent at 11;500. The Radar Controller and his D-side did the coordination with underlying approach controls and the Radar Controller was able to get back in touch with pilot of the PC12. The Controller told the pilot he appeared to be heading north and suggested pilot fly due east to get away from precipitation. The Controller suggested the aircraft now fly south to stay in between two areas of precipitation and gave him clearance to climb and maintain 21;000. The pilot continued on his route of flight. I informed the next area of the situation and to keep a close eye on the aircraft. Maybe [we need] better weather RADAR.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described an apparent rapid descent by an aircraft flying through weather and noted that improved ATC weather RADAR could assist in these types of situations.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out; passing approximately 17;000 feet we received a level 1 alert 'EMER PWR ON' alert. We selected the electrical synoptic and noticed that battery voltage at 27 volts. We consulted the QRH [Quick Reference Handbook]; deployed the ADG [Air Driven Generator]; and diverted back to ZZZ.




Synopsis: MD-11 First Officer reported returning to departure airport after experiencing an electrical anomaly that resulted in ADG [Air Driven Generator] deployment.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wing Attachment
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Prior to the incident [we] where having a discussion near [the aircraft when I] bounced off the left vortilon. Line manager noticed that the vortilon was pointing in the opposite direction of the aircraft. [The company was notified].




Synopsis: A Hawker 800 appeared to have a Vortilon pointing in the opposite direction.
Date: 201701
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Reverser Position Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft X was dispatched from [the] gate. The aircraft was released from maintenance and pushed back onto an active taxiway. Upon engine start the crew reported to the Hub Maintenance Coordinator that an amber no. 1 eng thrust reverser light on the pilot's overhead panel was illuminated. I was notified by my supervisor by telephone; and asked if I could reset the Engine Accessory Unit (EAU); located in the forward equipment center; while the aircraft was still located on an active taxiway. I stated that we are not permitted to do aircraft maintenance on aircraft while on an active taxiway. At that moment in time; there was still no write up recorded in the aircraft ELB (electronic logbook). I then received a phone call from the operating manager who demanded that I perform undocumented work on an aircraft while on the active taxiway; and that this was an approved procedure indorsed by his boss. When I refused; I was told that I now have a big problem with him; the operating manager; and that I would need a shop steward. Fortunately the aircraft was then pulled into the gate; a write up was made; and mechanics were able to perform safe; documented maintenance In Accordance With Fault Isolation Manual procedures; and all applicable General Maintenance Manual (GMM) references; and a new maintenance release was sent to the aircraft.I would like clarification as to whether there is a written procedure for working on aircraft while parked on an active taxiway. And as for undocumented maintenance; the GMM does not permit a Mechanic performing Maintenance on aircraft without a write up and proper documentation as per the GMM. I also think something needs to be said to the Operating manager because I do not believe anybody should have to work in a hostile; threatening; environment.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported that a B737 had to return to the gate because of a Reverser fault light.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: MD-88
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Compressor Blade
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In July; I worked routine card for service of the #2 engine. The step requires inspection of the #2 engine fan blades. Upon inspection three fan blades where found to be out of allowable limits for FOD damage per MD88 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 72-33-21 (minor damage). I blended the blades per MD88 (AMM) 72-33-21. With the fast pace of Remain Over Night (RON) work and the short turnaround time; the option for errors increase. Those who are not accustomed to it will have an increase percentage. I did not follow through with my co-worker to see if they had called Maintenance Control on that day. The blended blades carry a 50 flight hour High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) reinspect in which the same inspection resurfaced on a work card of a different aircraft [8 days later]. Only then did I find that the call to Maintenance Control or any other monitoring team was not made. The aircraft returned to service on the morning [after maintenance work]. Maintenance Control has been notified [9 days later].




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician reported that a required fan blade follow-up inspection was not created due to a failure to contact maintenance control.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the approach the warning light illuminated and we identified the problem by looking at caution panel; and noticed loss of hydraulic pressure on system one. We ran through the check list and executed as required and [advised] Tower. Landed without incident; entered the ramp; stopped the aircraft and had it towed into the gate.Aircraft caution light; and hydraulic system one showed zero pressure and zero fluid. System failure on the Hydraulic system one.We initiated the non normal emergency check list and completed the necessary steps to allow for a successful zero flap landing. [Advised] Tower; requested they contact company and the Captain then took over the flight controls and landed the aircraft without incident. After landing Captain was able to safely exit the runway onto the taxiway. The aircraft was safely moved to gate with the assistance of the tow crew.




Synopsis: Dash 8-100 FO reported loss of hydraulic system 1 on approach. Crew ran the checklist and a normal landing ensued.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AVL.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground AVL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Ran into poorly marked drainage ditch following yellow taxi line and avoiding other aircraft. Unable to see ditch under the nose. Aircraft extracted with tug with no structural or control surface damage; only loss of an inoperative ADF antenna and bending of the tail tiedown. No prop strike. No injuries; pilot alone in the aircraft. Pilot's attention diverted by other aircraft. Incident avoidable by closer pilot attention but would also recommend a barrier or better marking system for a drainage ditch at the end of an apron and removal of the yellow taxi line (second aircraft in last 4-5 years to fall into the ditch).




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported that during taxi he ran into a ditch at AVL.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RNT.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E S46
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Ultralight
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was on an IFR flight plan and had descended to 5;000 feet (around 150 TAS) being vectored toward PAE. Looking out after reconfirming ATIS on the radio; saw a flock of paragliders on the left side of the plane. Had about 5 seconds to react.The aircraft was on autopilot on an ATC issued vector. Considered 3 options:1. Climb2. Descend3. Veer rightDid neither one; because of the fact that it seemed like the paragliders were actually climbing; and the possibility of others camouflaged between the aircraft and the ground below and mountain on the right side where they launch from.Straight ahead was clear and so decided not to knock off the autopilot. Called Seattle Approach and reported. ATC mentioned that this was an unexpected occurrence. Most disconcerting was the fact that I was not able to detect them on my visual scans right up until the time they were too close. Also; even while I passed them they seemed to be rising higher. I estimated the miss distance at 100; however; they seemed to be still climbing above my altitude.




Synopsis: Pilot reported NMAC with paragliders near RNT airport.
Date: 201712
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight sends an ACARS to dispatch; 'PIECE FELL OFF ON TAKEOFF CAN U FIND OUT WHICH AND ADVISE.' Then two more ACARS were sent to Dispatch: 'HOLDING 1000 FT.... FOB 162K --- CALL ME ON SAT PLS.' The only replies that the Dispatcher had to the crew were the canned ACARS replies: 'ACKNOWLEDGED; PLEASE STANDBY.' Here we have a flight in a possible emergency situation; holding at 10000 FT with possible parts missing and in all of this time never any pertinent replies to the aircraft. The Dispatcher was also unable to call the aircraft on SATCOM. In all of this time; never was Management or the Duty Officer ever advised of this situation. I could not tell if ATC or Tower was ever called. Ramp finally called and advised that inboard slat piece was missing. The crew called Dispatch; and amazingly; the Dispatcher offered a re-analysis with an over burn accounting for missing inboard slat pieces and continue to [destination]. ALL OF THIS WITH MISSING PARTS OF THE WING! And the flight was holding at 10000 FT. I advised Maintenance and the Duty Officer and they went over to the Dispatcher. The crew finally advised Dispatch that they were returning to [departure airport]. There was a serious lack of competency; urgency; and operational control displayed. Dispatcher couldn't dial the aircraft on SATCOM in such an urgent situation. Dispatcher never advised anyone on the situation. Dispatcher relays to the crew over burns to continue to [destination] with aircraft pieces missing; possibly putting the crew and the flight in further danger.


Second narrative: Inboard slat broke away from the aircraft on takeoff. Dumped fuel. Air return.


Synopsis: MD11 flight had a loss of a an inboard slat on takeoff which results in a return to departure Airport.  Miscommunication issues between Dispatch and the flight crew made the situation worse.