elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
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; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out; at about FL260; I Pilot Flying (PF) noted the EICAS became de-cluttered. I pointed it out to the Captain; and we found ENG 1 LP VIB to be at 4.0; which is in the yellow caution range.We leveled at FL280 and the Captain ran the QRH while I remained in control of the airplane and took over the radios. As instructed by the QRH; we were able to get the ENG 1 Low Pressure (LP) Vibration stabilized at about 78% N1. At this power setting; we were still able to maintain altitude and airspeed; so we discussed the possibility of continuing to [destination]; checking drift down; fuel plans; and other precautionary items.During this time; the Captain also contacted dispatch; Maintenance; and Ops; and included them in the loop. He had them rerun the flight plan at FL280 and our current speed. They concurred that we could continue to [destination].No further issues were noted.Upon arrival; we were met by Maintenance.  They determined that we needed to do an engine run-up check with them. The Captain and I coordinated with OPS and ATC; performed the run-up with MX; which was satisfactory. Maintenance signed off the writeup; '...could not duplicate...' and we loaded up passengers to continue our next leg.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported they received an EICAS message ENG 1 LP VIB. Flight continued to destination after running the QRH.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: TOGA [thrust] takeoff departing Phoenix on 25R; just about the time for thrust reduction; we hit a pretty good jolt of wake turbulence from the previously departing aircraft. It felt like the plane was 'hanging' there for a second. Rolling left then quickly right. It happened quickly and I corrected promptly. Wings level; lowered the nose a bit to get the speed back. It was over with and corrected and climbing as fast as it occurred. A little startling for me; I have to admit. I have been in wake before; but this one caught me off guard at the end of a long day as it was the first experience with wake in the Airbus. So this has completely redirected my attention to get caught up with flying SID. I'm climbing west into the full sun glare; in a hot plane; towards the end of a full day; this is not helping things at all. After the wake our focus shifted to routine ATC instruction compliance and flying the SID; we kept climbing. As you may have already guessed; the thrust reduction was overlooked way back about the time the wake turbulence occurred; and just as soon as we leveled off. OVERSPEED! The speed never exceeded the first red tick mark on the tape. But there it was! Obviously; we reduced thrust. Got the plane in its proper configuration and continued on.




Synopsis: A320 series First Officer reported a wake turbulence encounter shortly after takeoff from PHX distracted the flight crew from executing the thrust reduction from TOGA power resulting in an overspeed.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: First Officer called for slats extend at speed 200 KTS. I tried to extend the slats and received a slats stuck indication. Followed QRH and recycled slat handle; no difference. I took over the pilot flying duties and the First Officer accomplished the ECAM and the Slats Stuck Checklist. I declared an emergency as a precautionary measure and landed the aircraft at high speed with no slats. Taxied to gate and Maintenance did something in the cockpit and was able to get the slats to reset and extend. This seems to be a repeat Item with this aircraft. Local authorities are investigating the incident. First Officer did excellent job of running all the checklists. Find out what is causing the slats to not extend and fix the problem correctly.




Synopsis: A300 Captain experiences stuck slats during approach which cannot be corrected with checklist procedures. An emergency is declared and a high speed partial flap landing ensues. The aircraft has a history of slat issues.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Daytime VMC flight. Power up; APU start; cockpit setup etc was all normal. Then the APU shut down after 25 mins of running with a FAIL message. We ran the checklist; called Maintenance; were advised to use a GPU in an effort to get the APU restarted; which we did. About 30 minutes later with our passenger waiting we were able to get the APU back up; engines started; flight plan re-loaded; systems checked; and proceeded to taxi. Normal taxi and takeoff; but either during the takeoff roll; rotation; or second segment climb we experienced a lateral navigational anomaly where our heading indicator values seemed to have flipped 180 degrees on both sides. Attitude indicators still worked fine. It is worth noting this is an AHRS (Attitude and Heading Reference System)-equipped Citation X; not IRSs (Inertial Reference System); to provide attitude and heading. Both the course displayed on the MFDs (Multi-function Flight Displays) and HIs (Heading Indicators) were giving the same misinformation. To simplify; east was west and north was south. In Nav mode the FD (Flight Director) was commanding turns in the opposite direction of what was called for. I immediately requested a vector once we realized what was happening. Luckily we were in VMC so it was a fairly straight-forward procedure from there. We used the mag compass; primary attitude indicators and altimeters on our PFDs [Primary Flight Display] to fly and try to work the issue; then asked to divert to [a nearby alternate] in an effort to help maintenance and passenger. We received no EICAS (Engine-Indicating and Crew Alerting System) messages nor indications on the PFD that there were any data mis-compares; avionics failures; or revisionary modes enabled. We were vectored onto final; visual approach and landing were normal.


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


Synopsis: CE750 flight crew reported a navigation anomaly shortly after takeoff; and diverted to a nearby alternate.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This report is in response to the FAA's request for the general aviation community to submit reports about any COVID-19 related challenges to flying safely.  The response of flight schools and CFI's to the pandemic situation has varied with individual states; flight schools; and instructors.  Some have taken the risk seriously and applied risk management/risk mitigation actions such as disinfecting aircraft high-touch surfaces and requiring everyone to wear masks when flying.  Others have proceeded with 'business as usual' with little or no actions to address the COVID situation.  While economic factors are strong and important; you can keep a flight school open and take reasonable actions to address the COVID risk to students; instructors; and staff.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  My own local flight school falls in the 'business as usual' category as wearing a mask during flight is 'too inconvenient.'  If you don't like the policy; you can fly elsewhere.  This attitude is problematic for several reasons: a) flying with a mask is a minor inconvenience but does not typically interfere with communications or instruction on a typical GA flight so the benefit outweighs the cost; b) it sends the message that not every client is valued and the business is willing to cut you lose if you have a legitimate health concern; and c) it sends the wrong message about ADM [Aeronautical Decision Making] and risk management.  CFI's deal with risks and risk management on every flight.  COVID-19 is just a new risk to deal with that could impact crew health and safety.  Why should this risk be treated differently than other risks such as inadequate fuel or poor weather?  Analyze and mitigate the risk!  Those who don't take this risk seriously may not take other risks seriously either.  Sounds like the hazardous attitudes of Anti-Authority and Invulnerability.  Aviation and aeronautics are based on science.  When you exceed the critical angle of attack; the wing stalls whether you believe it will or not.  COVID-19 is also based on science; and simple risk mitigation steps are appropriate to help keep everyone safe and flying!




Synopsis: Pilot reported concerns with some flight schools not requiring face mask to be worn during flights.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing out on a ferry flight the Flight Attendant noticed fuel venting from the left wing. Fuel quantities indicated we were losing fuel from the left tanks. We performed the fuel leak QRH; declared an emergency and diverted to [nearest suitable airport].




Synopsis: EMB-145EP First Officer reported on climb he received a call from Flight Attendant who reported fuel venting from the left wing; which was confirmed by the quantity indicators. They declared an emergency and diverted to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We did not provide coffee on a 1 hour flight because I felt it was unsafe.  I decided for my own safety to only provide guests with sealed beverages and snacks as are required.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported deciding to serve only sealed snack and beverage items to customers due to COVID-19 safety concerns.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon takeoff; I was in the process of cleaning up the aircraft when I noticed we had two messages on our Ecas; E1 hydraulic pump fail and Low hydraulic QTY. I called attention to the messages to the Captain; at which point we ran the QRH and made the decision to continue on to our destination. While in route the Captain contacted the company and we all agreed to continue to ZZZ and [advise ATC] once in US airspace so that we could be assured we could get the longest runway at ZZZ. We monitored the situation all the way to ZZZ and also reviewed all the QRH procedures so that we had a safe landing. We landed at ZZZ and was towed to the gate.The threat was we had a complete hydraulic system 1 failure; which means we lost haft our brakes; thrust reverse on the number 1 engine; no steering; no in board spoilers From this event I have learned that following the QRH while having good crew communication along with good ATC communication leads to great outcomes.




Synopsis: ERJ First Officer reported that a hydraulic system failure resulted in a diversion.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We diverted back to ZZZ midflight due to a severe line of thunderstorms.Dispatch was pressuring us to go when we did not feel that our planned routing would keep us clear of extremely hazardous weather. They filed us at XX;000 feet right in the convective cloud base on a flight that should have been closer to YY;000 [feet]. The squall line extended from ZZZ1 to east of ZZZ2. There were no gaps in the wall greater than 10 miles between storms prior to departure. I told Dispatch that it would be a waste of fuel and the passenger's time to conduct the flight because there was a very good chance of diverting. They still wanted us to go.Nearing ZZZ [VOR] way point we observed extreme radar returns and did not see a safe way of maintaining proper distance from the severe weather. We contacted ATC for deviations and then ultimately a return to ZZZ. We had to hold and burn off fuel to land under MLW (Maximum Landing Weight).In times such as these I understand that the company wants to complete as many revenue flights as possible. However if in the opinion of the Captain; the flight cannot be completed safely and would in turn cost the company $X's more by attempting the flight; dispatchers should hold the flights crews evaluation of the situation to a higher standard and not be in a position to pressure crews and ultimately waste company dollars.


Second narrative: Diverted back to ZZZ after approaching a wall of thunderstorms. We saw from the ground on radar that it was likely not safely navigable. Dispatch asked us to go anyway. When approaching the storm the inflight radar was nearly 100% attenuated at 50 miles. If pilots aren't confident of making it around storms flight should have been delayed until storms have passed or broke up.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported diverting due to an impassable line of thunderstorms. Crew stated that Dispatch was pressuring them to continue on planned routing to destination.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 30 minutes into the flight; the low voltage light and discharge light illuminated. I completed the checklist items and the lights did not extinguish. I elected to return to ZZZ to have Maintenance look at the issue. Upon arrival at ZZZ my aircraft was met by the fire brigade and I was asked to provide my name and telephone number.




Synopsis: C206 pilot reported low voltage and discharge lights illuminated 30 minutes into the flight and resulted in a return to departure airport.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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 Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On final approach at 2000 ft; 'Gear Down' was called for by the Pilot Flying (myself). It was noted that a slight grinding sound was heard when the gear selector was placed in the down position. When the Non-flying pilot had selected the Landing Gear into the Gear Down position; the L Main; and R Main Gear Green Lights illuminated; yet the Nose Gear light did not illuminate. Giving the gear a few seconds; I proceeded to check the lights on bright and dim; which verified that the Nose Gear light was not illuminated. At about 1500 ft; I called for a missed approach; configured the aircraft accordingly; and received vectors from ATC while we ran the proper checklist. During the running of the checklist; the Green Nose Gear Light illuminated. We continued the checklist; and completed the checklist in entirety. We both confirmed that we had three green gear indications and landed without any additional issue. During the event; The Flight Attendant; passengers; ATC; and Company were all advised of the situation. Upon successful completion of the checklist; Tower was advised that we no longer requested emergency equipment to meet the aircraft.




Synopsis: DHC-8-200 First Officer reported the nose gear green light did not illuminate on initial gear extension; but it later came on and the flight landed without incident.