elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Lost Blue Hydraulic System two hours form destination we ran all QRH and ECAM checklists as per company policy Advise Dispatch and flight attendants as this was non normal procedure and not an emergency did not declare an emergency as only thing inoperative was number 3 spoilers and landing configuration full with just landing distance correction. Advised Approach through Dispatch. Normal full flap landing then taxied to gate normally. Advised Line Maintenance on taxi in [we had] no other problems.Lost of Blue Hydraulic System there is little guidance QRH if this system is an emergency appears to be non normal and on guide in FOM if this system lost is an emergency. [We needed] more guidance in the FOM and QRH.




Synopsis: An A321 flight crew followed QRH directed response to the loss of the blue hydraulic system and continued to their destination. Did not declare an emergency due in part to confusion as to whether the failure was considered an emergency or simply non-normal.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Similar sounding call signs for both aircraft involved didn't result in an incident during my session. However since I have been working at this facility the 4 number digit call signs have lead to many incidents via either poor read backs; controllers getting confused or pilots getting confused. I have reported this event of similar call signs every time I've seen it to management and have failed to see any action taken. I personally have had 2 very close calls with similar sounding call signs; one of which the read back was 100% correct however the wrong pilot read back another planes call sign. This is a very dangerous situation that continues on a day to day basis; with nothing being done that I'm aware of to fix the call sign issue. Denver Center has now issued a last letter suffix to their similar sounding call signs; this seems to clear up confusion. Bottom line; do something to stop this safety hazard.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller voiced concern regarding the similar sounding four digit call signs being utilized by at least one company; adding that something has to be done clear up this on going problem.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bell Helicopter Textron Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During an Active HAA (Helicopter Air Ambulance) mission I delivered a patient to the [hospital]. After completing the mission and departing the area my dispatch said that [Tower] notified them that I broke the TFR over the stadium for the football game that was taking place. I was very surprised because earlier in the day I had checked the FAA standard briefing website for TFR information and there was nothing on that page notifying me of that TFR. I also have up to the minute XM weather/TFR information being sent directly to my GPS; and it didn't show any TFR over the stadium. The next day there was another college football game taking place at [a different college]. Foreflight; a third party product said that there was a TFR over that stadium but again the FAA website said that there wasn't. Even when the TFR became active it didn't say anything about it on the FAA website. I feel that there is a gap in the system that could be either clarified or fixed. It seems like the TFRs for football games are not being published as expected by pilots.




Synopsis: Bell 407 pilot reported he had a TFR incursion and stated the TFR was not listed on the FAA briefing website. Both TFRs were for sporting events.
Date: 201704
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During #2 engine change I was assisting on the connection of the Thermal Anti-Ice (TAI) ducting for the engine anti ice valve where the tool in question was used. After completion of the duct install I picked up tool and started to return to the floor when I saw that the thumbnail fairing needed installation. I then set the tool down on the wing to help with the fairing install. After installing the fairing I returned to the floor leaving the tool on the wing. The prybar was resting on a black stripe marking the border for the emergency exit pathway partially concealing it from view. The tool was subsequently discovered by a passenger on taxi to the runway.


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


Synopsis: Contract Maintenance personnel and Air Carrier flight crew reported that a pry bar was left on the wing of a Boeing 737 after replacing the engine.  A passenger noticed the tool on top of the wing as aircraft was holding for takeoff.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: An A320 was on ILS 26L into ONT just past PETIS NDB descending out of 3;400. I observed a VFR target without transponder from north of Highway 10 southbound going to cross the ONT final and issued traffic to the A320. I offered the A320 a vector around the traffic and he declined. The traffic did not merge; but only just barely. This is a known VFR transition area just below the Class C at ONT. The traffic was clear of the A320 and I transferred communication to ONT. Subsequently I called RAL Tower and asked if they were talking to the aircraft without transponder; they were and I asked the altitude of the aircraft. They advised he said he was at 2;200. This is an all too common problem at ONT; what I would suggest is that we protect the aircraft on the ONT final better and have the east extension of ONT's Class C be down to the surface out to PETIS NDB. This problem needs to be addressed before something does happen on the final into ONT.




Synopsis: SCT Controller described a conflict event involving Air Carrier traffic inbound to ONT on the ILS 26L and VFR traffic crossing the ILS path; the reporter recommending ONT's Class C be expanded to reduce same type events.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While climbing out of TEB on the RUUDY4 Departure; we failed to cross WENTZ at or below 1;500 FT; instead climbing directly to 2;000 FT. ATC pointed out our mistake but did not indicate a loss of separation. The crew accomplished a before takeoff briefing to include the SID procedure. Both pilots missed the climb restriction. The event could have been easily prevented by the use of VNAV climb instead of a FLCH climb. Both crew members have now adopted this procedure to prevent this from happening again.




Synopsis: G450 pilots on the TEB RUUDY 4 failed to see or brief the WENTZ 1;500 FT charted constraint and climbed directly to 2;000 FT where ATC notified them of the error.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RFD.TRACON, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D RFD
ATC / advisory: TRACON RFD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The aircraft was on vectors for the ILS approach. We leveled off at 2500 ft. and were assigned a perpendicular heading toward the localizer. The aircraft was intermittently in and out of IMC during this segment of the approach. We momentarily exited IMC and noticed that approach had given us a vector that would bring us approximately 1000 ft. above a power plant. We re-entered IMC and awaited a new intercept heading toward the localizer. We again exited IMC and realized that we were too close to the powerplant to avoid flying over it. We entered a vapor plume from one of the powerplant towers and experienced momentary severe turbulence. We gained 200-300 ft. and the stick shaker momentarily activated. I immediately disconnected the automation and regained control of the aircraft. Upon exiting the vapor plume; we corrected the altitude and airspeed and completed the approach.Being vectored over the powerplant. We should have immediately requested an amended heading away from the powerplant upon initial realization.Advise approach for an amended vector away from the powerplant.




Synopsis: First Officer reported encountering severe turbulence when ATC vectored them over a powerplant that was emitting vapor plumes.
Date: 201703
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The tractor used to push this aircraft was one of the newer ones that picks the nose wheel off the ground and pulls it up a ramp into a carriage; I believe. The problem is the tug operator asks for a brake release in order to pull the nose wheel into the carriage. I asked her if this is the only way to attach this tug type for push. She said she knew of no other way. I specifically verified that she wouldn't move the aircraft in any other way. She said she would not. I then released brakes and stated; 'Brakes are released; hold position; not cleared for push or movement.' She rogered me.The flight manual script for pushback doesn't appear to take into account this type of tractor hook up. This hook up procedure can and sometimes does happen before the Before Push Checklist and/or the Cabin Ready. Currently; we don't release brakes until [the] Before Push Checklist complete; Flight Service Coordinator reports cabin ready; AND a push clearance is received. If we wait for all these just to attach this type of tug; I believe it will have unintended consequences. If I mistakenly violated SOP in this case; it was unintentional; and I genuinely attempted to adapt to the situation with extra safety measures in the form of questions and added specific communication.




Synopsis: A320 Captain expressed confusion over brake release procedures when using a new type of tug.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Tower, CA
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Due to a taxiway closure on the south side of the field; departures from the south side had to make their way across 2 active runways to get to their departure runway. One particular jet was Aircraft X; who I instructed to cross Rwy 25L; and turn right onto Hotel.  He read that back correctly; and in a separate transmission; I instructed him to hold short of Rwy 25R at Juliet; which he also read back correctly.  There was also Aircraft Y that I had following Aircraft X.  Aircraft Y keyed up and said 'I don't know what this guy is doing; but I'm gonna turn right on hotel'; I then noticed that Aircraft X had missed his turn onto Hotel; and kept forward onto Rwy 25R while there was an aircraft departing down it. I told Aircraft X to stop right now; and then right away went to Aircraft Z (the departing jet); and instructed him to abort take off.At this airport; the city will close taxiways all over the airport and not leave many options for controllers to safely use taxiways.  I believe that this incident was a result of that.




Synopsis: Los Angeles Tower Controller reported a runway incursion due to an aircraft taxiing onto the runway while another jet was departing.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Oxygen Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft had an MEL 35-02A placard which pertains to the flight deck crew oxygen indicator being inoperative.  It requires a Maintenance inspection every flight to ensure that the oxygen bottle has enough oxygen for the number of pilots on the flight deck for the flight. What this MEL does not cover is a serious question as to whether the oxygen valve on the bottle is fully open.  Those of you that were 737 pilots will recall a period where we had discovered airplanes with the valve not fully open and will understand the magnitude of this oversight.When performing preflight duties the pilots are required to check for a pressure drop on the oxygen indicator. If the needle stays steady you were confident the valve was open.  With the oxygen gage being inoperative this safety feature is removed.  MEL 35-02A does not address this at all; it only addresses the bottle being full. Therefore I am requesting that along with the bottle quantity being confirmed that we add the oxygen bottle valve be checked to confirm in the full open position to the MEL. This is an essential item of safety.

Callback: The reporter stated that the issue of the crew O2 supply not completely turned on has been going on for a long time. The reporter stated that when the O2 indicator is deferred it is unknown to the crew if the valve is completely open or not. The reporter also stated that they (the flight crew) will get Maintenance to come out and verify that the O2 valve is completely open. The reporter stated that when the crew O2 is serviced they would like to see two signatures verifying that the valve is completely open. The reporter stated that this issue has been pursued for quite some time and has not seen any action on it.



Synopsis: B737 Captain reported they are unable to confirm if the O2 system is operating properly if the gauge is inoperative.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C BUR
ATC / advisory: Tower BUR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On arrival to runway 15 BUR (Burbank) we requested runway 15 due to longer runway length and other possible runway had a slight tailwind. During approach and approaching SCRET we received a GPWS 'TERRAIN TERRAIN; PULL UP'. We complied and performed the escape maneuver. We advised ATC. We then requested and landed on runway 08. This was both the Captain's and First Officer's first time into this airport.




Synopsis: The Captain of an Airbus 320 reported that they received a GPWS alert during final approach.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMUN.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After parking a fully loaded -800; I went to the ramp to do a walk around for our next flight. As I approached the nose wheel well; I immediately noticed that I did not have to bend over to enter the wheel well. The nose scissors and strut were fully extended. I have never seen that on a 737 and first thought it was an over serviced strut. I continued my walk around while thinking over the nose issue. As I returned to the nose I saw the strut actually compress to a normal position. At this point the Operations Lead came running down the stairs after he immediately stopped passengers from deplaning. He then told me the ramp around [the gate] has a sloping grade rearward. He also said that because of that slope; another carrier actually had a -800 that had [the nose wheel] come off the ground the week before. I found this valuable safety information.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported noticing during walk around that the aircraft was very lightly weighted on the nose wheel when parked at a gate that had a rearward slope.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At level off; ECAM master caution HYD G ENG 1PUMP LO PR. Completed ECAM procedures. [Requested priority handling] with ATC. Diverted to ZZZ. Landed without incident.


Second narrative: Just as we leveled off at 35;000 ft. Master caution for HYD G ENG 1 PUMP LO PR. When the over head panel was checked to confirm the ECAM caution; PTU PB Fault illuminated and GREEN ENG PUMP 1 Fault illuminated. ECAM procedures were completed; dispatch and company maintain were notified. [Requested priority handling] with ATC. Uneventful [priority] landing was accomplished at ZZZ. AML entry was made; aircraft was removed from service by ZZZ company Maintenance. Aircraft was below max landing weight.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported diverting after ENG 1 Green Hydraulic System Engine Driven Pump failed.