elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Logbook Entry; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This A320 aircraft had a Deferral (DF) with the narrative of the Green System Hydraulic Pump cockpit switch [was] inoperative (inop); in that it could not turn off the Green System Hydraulic pump. It had been DF'd a few days prior in ZZZ1. Since the Green System pump is a major aircraft system and the ability to turn it off; directly affects the ability to carry numerous Green Sys fault checklists; I was concerned with the DF. A call to Maintenance Control to question the Deferral (DF) led to my call to the Dispatch Desk to refuse the Aircraft. If the [Green] System lost [hydraulic] fluid the pump was uncontrollable and I felt this could lead to catastrophic results in relation to Engine-1. Further questioning of Maintenance Control led me to believe that the MEL used for the DF had been fairly loosely translated to apply to this malfunction. The gate Mechanic said the switch was not the problem; but the actual solenoid on the [Engine Driven Hydraulic] pump itself. From start to end of this event; I could not fathom why this Aircraft had been DF'd at all. As Maintenance Control said later; glad we [flight crew] caught it before an airborne incident happened. I couldn't agree more.




Synopsis: A Captain questions Maintenance Control about their deferral of a cockpit control switch for Number 1 Engine's Green Hydraulic System Engine Driven Pump (EDP) on an A320 aircraft. Captain noted that if the Green System lost hydraulic fluid; the pump would be uncontrollable and the inability to turn off the pump affects the ability to carry numerous Green System fault checklists.
Date: 202008
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MBB-BK 117 All Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Logbook(s)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Logbook Entry; Procedure
Primary problem: Logbook Entry

Narrative: We had performed scheduled maintenance on a BK117C2. We also performed troubleshooting of a fuel quantity fluctuation issue. 2 main tank fuel probes were removed and inspected; one was replaced. After the fuel probes were reinstalled the aircraft was moved outside for refueling and leak checks. During this time I was doing all the log book entries that were told to me. I did not enter any fuel probe entries as I wasn't performing the MX and didn't have any paperwork at that time. As time went on we got in a hurry to return the aircraft to service and none of the fuel probe work was documented by myself or the mechanic that performed the MX. The aircraft was returned to service without the correct paperwork and flew back to [the] hospital at ZZZ where it is based. I received a call from one of the mechanics asking if the panels had been reinstalled and I told him that I didn't know as I didn't perform the maintenance. It was then that we discovered that the panels were in fact not reinstalled. I immediately called my supervisor and reported the undocumented maintenance and we took the aircraft back out of service and sent mechanics to reinstall the panels and complete the paperwork correctly. I believe that we were rushing maintenance to get the aircraft in service and crucial steps were missed.Perform a more detailed passover between mechanics; Communicate better between Mechanics.


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


Synopsis: Technicians reported log book entries were not made before returning the aircraft to service after scheduled maintenance.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Ramp; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I have not been to MIA for many years except for a few times recently and not in the X terminal pocket at all. We were pushed from gate X to spot Y. When the tug turned us loose all I saw was spot Y still ahead of us. Ground control told us to wait for an aircraft to pass; then taxi on taxiway P to [Runway] 8R. I thought it was prudent to continue to spot Y while we wait for the aircraft to pass. On the way to Y I noticed we were encroaching on taxiway P. I stopped to let the other aircraft pass. I did not understand how I could have gotten to close to taxiway P while still short of spot Y.  I was using the 10-9 page and did not see an error. Upon further review using 10-9 page I saw there are three taxi lanes that are only depicted on this page. Spot Y lane to the North; spot Z lane to the South and one in the middle that does not lead to either spot. There is a large Y painted on the ground further out that is not depicted on any chart. When the tug turned us loose I believe we were stopped on the middle taxi lane very close to the hold line. The hold line and the close in spot number were not visible from where the tug stopped us. Neither of us saw them. The Y painted further out is the only one visible from my vantage point. If not familiar it is a very confusing situation. Even though I reviewed terminal and taxi charts this still happened. Next time into Miami I will be more aware of ramp layout.[Suggest] depicting the hold line on 10-9 chart and tug driver not stopping aircraft so close to hold line that it cannot be seen in wide body aircraft.




Synopsis: Pilot reported confusing ground markings leading to a spot out of the terminal area in MIA.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ1
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed ZZZ without Dispatch release remark of 'HAZMAT on flight - refer to [Dangerous Goods Form]'. When I discovered the error I notified Dispatch via ACARS.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported Dispatch release missing required Hazmat information.
Date: 201501
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Distribution
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After block in I started my ETOPS check and immediately noticed a puddle of oil under the Left engine. The Rolls Royce RB211 is a very stingy engine for oil consumption and external leaks are almost never visible. The cowling is clean and they rarely drip on the ground. I went to the cockpit and found 16 quarts indicated on the EICAS engine display; the right engine showed 21 quarts (normal quantity). The co-pilot was outside the cockpit; so I stepped out to ask him if he had noticed the left engine oil quantity. He was vague in his recollection but did remember seeing the 16 quart indication. Neither crew member had written it up which I thought rather strange since it was below ETOPS limits for the return flight. I researched the logbook for oil consumption and found a consistently high amount of oil being added for at least the prior 5 days. We serviced the left engine with 4 more quarts in Airport ZZZ after a 5 hour flight from Airport ZZZ1 again. The engine was consistently leaking large quantities of oil but no one caught it or stopped the plane from flying ETOPS. It was leaking from the IDG drive shaft drain because the O-ring on the drive shaft was cut and almost 1-4 of the circumference was missing half its diameter I do not understand how so many pilots or mechanics did not recognize the high consumption rate or see the leak under the engine. The Oil Monitoring Program did not flag the consumption because it is triggering point of 8 quarts added at any given time was not exceeded. The software in the program is supposed to take a 15 DAY rolling average and trigger an alert; apparently this did not happen either. The system broke down and needs to be looked at.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician reported an oil leak and significant oil consumption without apparent notice by other Maintenance or Company Personnel.  He noted that the oil tracking program is not identifying the elevated consumption.
Date: 201208
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Taking off this morning there was a black and orange truck that crossed the runway at taxiway E while we were taking off. We were approximately 100 KTS with about 3;000 FT left. On departure I called back to the Tower to notify them of the truck crossing the runway.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported that a truck crossed the runway ahead of them on the takeoff roll.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I issued Line Up And Wait to Aircraft X Runway 1 Left.  I do not recall if I said traffic landing both Runway's 28 Left and Right; which I do as often as possible to keep myself abreast of the traffic as well as pilot expectation.  When the Runway 28 Right arrival rolled through; I cleared Aircraft X for take-off.  The Local Assist calmly said you didn't clear them did you; as they pointed to Aircraft Y over the approach lights.  I cancelled Aircraft X's take off clearance and received an immediate acknowledgement.  Since I received the immediate acknowledgement and Aircraft Y was still outside the threshold; I allowed Aircraft Y to land.  The Front Line Manager said good job team.I have an idea why Aircraft Y disappeared from my scan.  I had just been discussing with my Local Assist the similar looking data blocks for the next two arrivals Aircraft Z & Aircraft A.  I use every tool I can to not only maintain my situational awareness; but also those of my tower team and the pilots.  I strive to be as accurate and complete as possible with every transmission make so that there is maximum benefit to the information exchange.




Synopsis: A SFO Local Tower Controller reported clearing an aircraft for takeoff. Local Assist questioned the Controller and pointed to an arrival aircraft. Local then cancelled the takeoff clearance and let the aircraft land. The reporter stated distraction related to similar looking call signs of aircraft on final contributed to the event.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Vehicle Driver; Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was told by my lead to take an aircraft from spot X and deliver it to gate X at XB:00. I grabbed my headset and a technician who was assigned to work with me [who] wanted to drive since he said he hadn't driven for awhile. I got the assignment at XA:20 we went to the supertug at XA:40. It was still dark and I sat on the passenger seat. The technician drove under the right wing at spot X due to ramp equipment surrounding the airplane including vehicles and GPU tugs and golf carts. The technician drove the tug at walking speed away from Number 2 engine. The supertug contacted the stand that is at door 1 right with the left hand aft side of the tug. I got off the tug and see if any damage to the aircraft. I saw a dent above the aft electrical compartment and a dent on the inlet of Number 2 engine. I called my lead right away. The stand was lower from Airbus position to 737 position. The rail right hand side bent outward and stand at top level bend downward. The left rail of the stand was 5 inches away from the Number 2 engine inlet.


Second narrative: It was still dark outside; and there was a lot of equipment parked along the wing tip area. I had to drive under the wing to get to the nose of the airplane. When I drove past the entry stand; the tail end of the tug made contact with the stand and caused it to contact the fuselage.


Synopsis: Two air carrier maintenance technicians reported that when positioning a super-tug to tow an A319; the tug made contact with a stand causing damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; 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: All these pilots had substandard English speaking skills. Cessna 152 was especially unreadable. He landed at DLS and then came back later for more flight following to a destination what the D-Side and my self determined was TTD. Aircraft was southbound; however and I called traffic with company northbound. I could not figure out why the aircraft was not turning westbound toward TTD so I asked him his destination. A company instructor on a different aircraft spoke up and told me that the pilot was going to S39 not TTD. Now his route of flight made more sense. These pilots were out in full force today because the weather was nice. It was an unpleasant reminder that their substandard English speaking skills have not been properly addressed by FSDO; the flight school or the instructors before they let them out into the system. It is an exponential increase in workload with these pilots and there are times when controllers can't or refuse to provide service to them knowing the extra workload they can impose. Even then these pilots still don't always understand unable and that is a real problem! Pilots need some standard of measurement which is not 'biased' by any particular flight school or instructor. There is a huge incentive for the school and instructors to overlook substandard English speaking skills. What I understand is that these pilots are here for training only and when they are done they return to their home country. They pay many times more than the local students for their flight training so the propensity to overlook substandard English skills is very strong. FSDO needs to follow up again to insure standards are not being conveniently overlooked and that the flight school/instructors are held accountable for releasing substandard students into the system.




Synopsis: ZSE Controller voiced concern regarding the lack of English speaking skills of some student pilots in the area; the reporter noting that FSDO and the Flight Schools should be more forceful in ensuring English competency.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Descending through approximately 28;000 FT aircraft hit clear air turbulence; but possible wake turbulence; [which] 'abruptly' rolled the aircraft to a 60-70 degrees bank to the left followed by severe turbulence. Flight Attendant stated it lifted the galley cart off the ground; which caused a drink to spill [on] a passenger. [We] immediately slowed aircraft from 300 KTS through 270 KTS. There were no clouds; traffic; nor any reports of this on the BULLZ arrival. MFD was set on expanded traffic with a 12.5 mile range. We could have been possibly following a heavy 777. No one was hurt and a report was given to Air Traffic Control after he questioned our speed being different than assigned.




Synopsis: ERJ-170 Captain reported a possible wake vortex encounter on arrival to ORD.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: At the start of the day my schedule showed three legs; first leg 1:35 block; second leg 3:20 block; and third leg 3:05 block. Actual block was 1:34 for the first leg and 4:25 for the second leg. If we were to fly the last block it would put us over our nine hours of flight time. When I called and informed scheduling; I was put on hold. When they returned I was informed that our block time was recalculated using updated wind information and that my block was now scheduled to be 2:45 and we were legal to fly the last leg. Was not sure if it was legal but captain was informed by Chief Pilot it was legal to recalculate block time. We flew last leg and had a total block of 10:08.




Synopsis: EMB175 First Officer questions his company's method of calculating the planned block time on the final leg of the day for FAR 117 compliance. The scheduled block time of 3:05 is recalculated to 2:45 due to favorable winds; allowing completion of the trip within nine hours. Actual block time is 4:09 and 10:08 for the day.