elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I followed tasks for installation of the main landing gear lower anti-rotation sleeve in accordance with CRJ 900 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 32-11-400-802 pertaining to the aircraft serial number; this task called for the task to install breaks; which were followed In Accordance With (IAW) CRJ 900 AMM 32-43-26-400-80. This task then called for the bleeding of the brake system IAW CRJ 900 AMM 32-43-00-870-801; the task proceeded to lead to an ops and leak check of the brake unit IWA CRJ 900 AMM 32-43-00-710-801 during this task no leaks were found at the time; therefore ops and leak check was good at the time.With the lack of experience I have with this system I am unsure of the exact cause of the issue; I cannot see what I could have done differently. I followed my task to an exact measurement as I am told to always do as such.


Second narrative: At the end of the night I had taxied the aircraft over the gate. I parked it and walked away from the aircraft without knowing that there was a leak on #1 brake that had happen when I taxied it in. Later I got a call from Maintenance Control saying that a pilot got hit in the face with skydrol. My other lead ran off to the gate to help the pilot and I taxied the other aircraft to the gate.The leaking brake and the fact that I did not know about until it was too late.


Synopsis: A Bombardier CRJ-900 Maintenance crew and a First Officer reported a hydraulic leak at the main landing gear. The First Officer reported of a burning sensation in his eyes.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Subject: iPad Operational IssuesOn [our international round-trip flight]; the entire crew experienced numerous operational failure issues with the iPad; specifically with the following:Problem: Pushing updates without pilot consent at down line stations that have limited WiFi or internet connection corrupts the current good data and renders the entire push updated area to completely fail in a variety of ways. It is better to keep old data available for reference rather than lose all the data in its entirety. For example the Captain's update started on push back rendering his iPad partially updated resulting in its complete failure for the remainder of the flight.Solution: Have all updates pushed but NOT automatically updated. Give the pilot the choice of updating now or later in order to preserve data availability down line.Problem: Drift down chart resolution issues prevented some iPads from rendering the drift down chart legibly.Solution: Rework in higher graphical detail all drift down charts.Problem: Jepp Pro locks up and requires precious minutes to re-align. This happened on taxi out; and during critical phase of flight over mountainous terrain. Totally unacceptable!Solution: Work out issue with vendor. In the meantime provide complete sets of paper enroute hi/lo charts especially for [international] flights and polar routes.Problem: iPad battery life is limited. For example started out with 100% charge and had to refer to the iPad Jepp Pro maps constantly for FIRs etc. 1/3rd way through flight was down to 17% battery power. The need to refer to iPad content during critical enroute phases of flight renders this short battery life unacceptable.Solution: Immediately provide pilot flight stations with electrical outlet power up capability.Problem: Suction cup cockpit iPad holder failures occur due the cumbersome; complexity of the holder design.Solution: Provide a simple work bench clip that can securely hold the iPad easily to the window slider clipboard.Conclusion: While demonstrating potential; the current iPad operation for ultra-long range international flights is less than ideal and appears to have been implemented without proper line pilot input.




Synopsis: B777 international First Officer reported the entire crew had issues with their iPad usability and availability for the long-range transoceanic round trip.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CMA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CMA
ATC / advisory: Tower CMA
Second aircraft: Robinson R44
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying a traffic pattern using runway 26 at CMA. On downwind abeam the tower I was advised of R-44 traffic (2 aircraft) in the pattern and to report them in sight. I did not see the traffic and reported that to the tower. I was instructed to continue and a landing clearance would be issued when I had them in sight. I continued on downwind; then base and upon turning final I saw one R-44 on short final ahead of me and one on a parking spot near the east end of Taxiway G; a short distance from the landing area; with his rotor turning at operating RPM. My assessment was that those two R-44s were the traffic I was advised of in the pattern when I was on downwind. Hence; I reported them in sight and was given a clearance to land. I continued my approach and focused on avoiding the parked R-44s while maneuvering to my parking area. I did not hear any other traffic on the tower frequency at that time. Upon touchdown my ground crew advised that I had overflown an airborne R-44 maneuvering for parking and my rotor wash had caused the R-44 control problems. I was unaware of the third R-44 until then.Upon investigation I learned the R-44 that I had flown over had conducted an offset parallel approach approximately 500 feet to my right and was not on tower frequency but on Ground; as was the procedure established by the tower. Upon termination of his approach he proceeded to air taxi to his parking area which crossed my final approach path. Neither one of us were aware of each other. The use of two frequencies for landing traffic to the same area caused a lack of situational awareness and control which could have led to tragic results. This was brought to the attention of the FAA Inspector and the use of two frequencies for controlling traffic was discontinued.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported that he flew over another helicopter that was air taxiing after a parallel approach; but was on another frequency.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Potable Water Storage; control; indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft had been written up by the previous crew as having a potable water leak of unknown origin. Maintenance Techs did their inspection and could find no leaks or indication of water damage. They filled the water tank and signed the aircraft off for flight. Within 10 minutes of departure flight attendants report water tank was down to 70% and lavatory sinks had no water coming out. Within 25 minutes of departure tank was empty. We called Dispatch and Maintenance. Decision was made to return to ZZZ. Overweight landing was made because we had no idea where the water was leaking to and we did not want to expose ourselves to compounding failures. Advised ATC due to overweight landing. Landing was uneventful. ARFF followed us to the gate as we monitored brake temperatures.We suggest Maintenance review their task card for potable water leak of unknown origin and possibly make revisions.




Synopsis: A321 Check Airman reported an Air Turn Back after maintenance failed to diagnose and correct a potable water system leak that reoccurred next flight.
Date: 201910
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A corporate jet was instructed by the tower to hold short of Runway 4L on Z. They read back hold short of 22R. Since it was the correct runway; but not necessarily the correct answer I kept an eye on them as we were given instructions to line up and wait on 4L. It was at dusk and I was having a hard time seeing the other end of the runway; but I am certain that the corporate jet stopped short of our runway. They weren't moving as we were given clearance for takeoff. After V1 and as I was calling rotate both me and the Captain noticed that the corporate jet was crossing our runway. The Captain voiced the incident and decided to continue.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported that during takeoff roll; a Corporate jet crossed their runway and the Captain elected to continue the takeoff.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We arrived on MSCOT4 arrival. Got clearance from center to descend via. We started the descent via; and got a hand off to approach. Approach told us to descend via the 27 transition for a 26L landing. It took me a couple of calls to clarify what he was asking for; and he eventually just told us to fly a 085 degree heading after DOMNO. The descent went well and in the correct flight mode until after MSCOT. We ended up in open descent I did not catch the change as I was trying to configure the MCDU for the new arrival clearance. I saw as we were approaching DOMNO that we were descending through 8000ft; the bottom of the arrival window for that fix; and told the PF to level off and climb back to altitude. We got about 400 feet low and climbed quickly back to 8000ft. ATC never mentioned our deviation; and I am not positive that we weren't cleared to 6000ft.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: Confusion over the clearance and improper autopilot mode selection led to a possible altitude deviation at DOMNO on the IAH MSCOT4 Arrival. A late runway change from Runway 27 to Runway 26L contributed to the distraction.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending on the [arrival] from the northeast for an approach to [Runway] XXR in VMC. We had briefed the extensive military training and the towers in the airport area. We were on a vector of approx 260 and were cleared for the visual. I selected 2800 ft. in the FCU (Flight Control Unit) altimeter (the FAF/ALAMO altitude); and we began to descend and start the big left hand turn (120+ degrees) to final. The runway was actually behind the Captain's head and while I was looking outside and dialing in intercept headings; I noticed we were below 2800 ft. I remarked that 2200 ft. was in the altimeter; but I didn't know why. (In hindsight; I must have bumped or spun the dial as I reached up to make heading adjustments). About this time we received a GPWS obstacle alert for the tower we had briefed and was in sight. By the time we climbed back up to 2800 ft. we were high (ILS NOTAM'ed OTS) and I couldn't see [the] runway in the climb and then was slow to get speed back. We finished configuring; ran the checklist and briefed a go around if not stable by 500 ft. [Cause includes] Lack of recency of experience -- I sat for a year before Airbus training after the [other make/model] was grounded. I was on that aircraft [for about a year]; but flew 2/3 to 3/4 as the [relief pilot]. Prior to that; I was out on a 4 yr leave (not flying). Lack of time in Airbus - [this month] was my third full month of being qualified on the aircraft. Not yet comfortable with [the] concept of 'flying the FCU' on visual approaches. There is no way to 'chair fly' the approaches in an Airbus. I don't enjoy this feeling. I've looked for a simple computer simulation program for the FCU; FMA; PFD and ND that I could purchase so I could chair fly some of these situations and see what happens as different modes of speed; alt; and nav are selected; but have not found one yet.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported descending below minimum altitude on approach and receiving a GPWS obstacle alert. Reporter stated lack of recent experience and practice using the various navigation equipment contributed to the event.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Planned TYSSN3 arrival in LAS; ATC cleared us to descend via TYSSN3 RNAV arrival. At KADDY; after starting a descent to 10;000 FT; ATC cleared us to maintain 12;000 FT and to contact LAS Approach. Approach gave us a vector at TYSSN and informed us that we would fly the GRNPA1 RNAV arrival. After several vectors and descend to 8;000 FT we were cleared direct to TRROP at 5;200 FT at 210 KTS; first point for us on the arrival. After that clearance we were cleared to 'intercept the 19R RNAV approach off of the GRNPA1 arrival.' There are NO points on the GRNPA1 arrival that are on the 19R RNAV approach. The last point on the GRNPA1 arrival is LEMNZ and you must fly through the final approach inside the FAF to get to it. I think this is an illegal clearance. We were told by Approach to contact LAS Tower. We asked LAS Tower about the clearance and were recleared the visual approach to 19L. The landing was uneventful. After landing I called the LAS Approach Control Supervisor and was told that was a legal clearance for the 19R RNAV visual approach. I could not find any information on a 19R RNAV visual approach.Remake the GRNPA1 arrival to have a longer transition to the 19 runways or delete it. Both 19R and 19L RNAV arrivals have the exact same points up to the FAF. The MAP points are the only differences in the approach. Possible problems in the future of having the wrong approach loaded in the GPS and landing on the wrong runway.




Synopsis: An MD-82 Captain believed a LAS TRACON clearance to intercept the GRANPA RNAV STAR at TRROP; cleared for the RNAV 19R approach was illegal.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-31T Cheyenne I
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was at cruise when my panel lights started flickering and I started to smell smoke. My first thought was the heater might have been acting up so I turned it off. I then noticed the smoke was intensifying. I opened the windows and figured out the smoke was coming from the circuit breaker panel on the co-pilot's side. There was a very intense glow that I could see behind the circuit breakers. I managed to pull one of the breakers from where it looked like the glow was centered. About this time I could see an airport off the front right side of the nose so I informed Center that I had smoke in the cockpit and was going to land there. I got her slowed up; dropped the gear and flaps and headed for the runway. While on the approach the glow and the smoke were still intensifying and the panel was melting. It appeared that there were flames behind the panel. I turned final and lost all my lights to my instruments. After I landed; I called Center to tell him I made it in; turned everything off and opened the door. After everything was off the glow dissipated and eventually went out.




Synopsis: A PA31-350 pilot diverted to a nearby airport when his instrument lighting began to fail; followed by intensifying heat and smoke emanating from the Circuit Breaker Panel.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [I] worked 2 very; very busy and long sessions prior. Once with D-Side and 2nd time no D-Side but with FLM not certified at sector plugged in to assist. Just combined Sector 36 and Sector 16 together and previously was descending all BWI arrivals to FL270 for volume. My normal sectors descend all BWI to FL270 as standard procedure. Just went and gave a B717; a BWI arrival; my normal clearance even though I was not working my normal sectors. Due to this ZDC 8 areas to 6 areas change; I am now certified in 10 sectors and training on 11th sector. I was working overtime outside of my normal area to assist area 2 with their overtime. Sectors 16 and 36 are not my normal sectors and it had been several weeks since I had worked them after the accelerated certification. After the intense first 2 sessions; this third session I must have relaxed and gave standard descent to FL270 when I should have descended to FL280. ZDC be more safety oriented verse goal oriented of changing from 8 to 6 areas. Controllers are pressured to check out quickly to keep process moving. Training hours have been reduced. Once controllers are checked out; there is no plan for currency. Every 30 days when FLM's think of it sometimes Controllers are sent to recently checked out sectors for currency. Whether for 1 min or 1 hour and whether there is no traffic or not the box for currency is checked. My currency has already expired in one sector; a high volume and complex sector; which is a brand new sector for me. I expect to be thrown in there when it is busy as I was previous sectors.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller described an airspace incursion noting concern regarding the facility's policy of increasing sectors in each area; the training process and the lack of currency time afforded on the new sectors.