elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cabin Window
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; MEL; Logbook Entry; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight attendant alerted us to the fact that the Emergency [Exit] Row window shade was stuck in the UP position. [I] called Maintenance. They came out; couldn't get it back on track and communicated that to Maintenance Control. Gate Agent asked if it was 'OK' to seat people there and after consulting the MEL and finding nothing specific about the shade in the Emergency Row; still told him [Gate Agent] not to seat passenger there. Maintenance in [the departure airport] was in constant communication with Maintenance Control and deferred the shade as a Non-Essential Function (NEF) item. I asked both Maintenance Control and Local Maintenance in [the departure airport] if it was 'OK' to go. I got an affirmative both times from both departments.Got to [our destination] and the Gate Agent there said Maintenance was coming up to repair the shade as it was a No-Go Item when stuck in the UP position. I then called Maintenance Control and asked how come I wasn't told this in [the departure airport] and how was it that a No-Go Item was deferred as an NEF. Maintenance [Control] said the ambiguity of the wording was in question; as the UP could be interpreted to mean up; as in 'Closed;' or up; as in 'Open' and providing a view to the wing. [Our arrival airport's] Maintenance said he had never heard of it as a No-Go Item and promptly went back and jammed it down and open; allowing a view out [of the window]. Asked Maintenance Control what was the story with the write-up and was it wrong to have flown the plane. They said no; it was legal in the state [condition] the shade was in and there was no issue. So here is my report; as Maintenance saying it wasn't an issue; has red flags all over it. Better ability by Maintenance to check items that are No-Go Items and resolving any ambiguity in write-up wording.




Synopsis: A pilot describes how the use of the word 'UP' in a Logbook write-up; led to a misunderstanding between Maintenance and Maintenance Control. An improper deferral of an A319 cabin Emergency Exit Row window shade in the 'closed' position as a Non-Essential Function (NEF) item occurred.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was handed off to me from ZOA 42; with RNAV 29 in the 4th line. The aircraft was direct PLYAT the IAF for the approach and checked on with the weather and again requested it. Due to the odd angle; how deep into ZOA the aircraft was; as well as fact the scope was set up for the midshift; I used a nearby scope to zoom in to the area. I double checked the crossing restriction altitude as the MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude) lines in that area are somewhat confusing and issued a crossing restriction of 7;600 feet. (which is the MIA that PLYAT is in).Immediately south of that is a weird little carve out; that is attached to another MIA that runs up the eastern side of the sector. The small carve out has no MIA label on the video map. When I checked for the crossing restriction; I ran the route line and pulled up the MIA map on the adjacent scope; noting the highest MIA that I saw (7;600 feet.) which was subsequently issued.I did not realize until the MSAW alerted that the aircraft was going to violate the MIA. At the same time as this was happening; I was also sequencing aircraft at MFR and noticed some flashing in the ACV area. As this is an area that we routinely get false MSAW alerts in; I put it out my scan and focused on the other aircraft. I finally noticed the MSAW alert for Aircraft X when they were about 8;500 feet. and descending; however due to an incorrect transmitter selected; and then poor communications in that area; I was unable to issue a stop in time before the aircraft violated the MIA. By the time I issued the correct altitude the aircraft was already level at 7;600 feet.; and the next radar hit took them out of the MIA; due the timing and the few seconds the aircraft was in the incorrect MIA; I did not issue a low altitude alert. I would suggest that the MIAs in that area be redrawn as to make them less confusing; and/or at least label the small carve out that is attached to the other MIA. In addition more work needs to be done with that specific transmitter as it has been an issue for many years and aircraft that we should have good communication with is often times difficult.




Synopsis: ZSE Controller reported BE20 entering a higher MIA due to MIA map being difficult to read on mid-shift scale.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Probably about 15 passengers were not wearing their masks correctly over their nose and mouth during boarding and during the flight.  They would comply briefly then take them down.  State X is a COVID hot spot and I feel like the safety of complying customers and crew is compromised with them not following CDC guidelines. We made announcements and is what we were supposed to.  We reminded the passengers.  Other guests were upset as they wanted to be safe and were not.  We need a hard line of compliance.  No mask or a mask purposely worn incorrectly needs to not fly until the pandemic is over.  Any medical reasons need to be addressed before boarding and by medlink.




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported several passengers not properly wearing face masks.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Second aircraft: Robinson Helicopter; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff and advised a helicopter on upwind was 'no factor.' After takeoff; at approximately 500 FT AGL I saw a Robinson type helicopter at our 11:30 position and very close. I exclaimed 'Oh; my god!' At that point I should have taken the aircraft for an evasive maneuver to the right as the Captain had a very delayed response. I should have known better; my fault. I did not have the helicopter visually on the takeoff roll; but should have known this might happen. I feel that the controller assumed the helicopter would have been out of the way by the time we took off and it wasn't. I need to be more vigilant and ready to take evasive action as pilot not flying.The Tower should be more conservative and I should be ready to just take the controls and take evasive action and face the consequences later; my bad.


Second narrative: I felt the abeam distance with [the helicopter] at the far left edge of the runway would be too close to our left wingtip and; with the possibility of the helicopter drifting toward us or if it maneuvered toward the runway; I banked to the right 10 degrees to place our track between the centerline of the runway and the hill on the right side of the end of the runway to provide greater lateral and vertical clearance as we passed. The spacing obtained was less than 1;000 FT; but was much better than what would have happened without the heading change.


Synopsis: The flight crew of a B757-200 was forced to take lateral; low altitude evasive action with reference to a helicopter hovering at the far end of their takeoff runway. Tower had advised of the helo's presence; holding for clearance to cross; but the flight crew did not have it in sight until after lift off.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAL.Airport, FL
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E JAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON JAX
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching LAL from the north; VFR with flight following. Cruising at about 120 knots; overtaken by a single-engine jet 200 feet above with approximately the same heading. Observed traffic on GPS unit as it descended to the same altitude and closed distance; but could not obtain visual. Received collision alert on GPS unit. Attempted to deviate left of course to allow overtaking jet to pass on the right. Received second alert as jet appeared to be at the same position. Observed jet as it passed on the left a few hundred feet away at the same altitude.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a NMAC with an overtaking single-engine jet aircraft in the vicinity of LAL airport.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Fuel Storage System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight sent ACARS message: Possible fuel leak. Landing ZZZ. [Would land] in ZZZ1 below emergency fuel. When message was sent; aircraft was already descending through 10;000 FT into ZZZ. I sent amendment changing destination to ZZZ and included weather / NOTAMS. There was no other conversation prior to this maintenance report indicating fuel issues.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported a flight diverted to an alternate airport after noting a possible fuel leak.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We finished before takeoff checks and were number 2 for departure heading for ZZZ. As we slowly taxied into position number 2 for takeoff; the trim wheel spun uncommanded from 4.9 to 5.5 and stopped. About 4-5 seconds later the autopilot disconnect aural warning came on along with the AP DISC light; which stayed on and chiming until I clicked the left thumb autopilot disconnect button. We turned on to taxi way and I called Maintenance Control to discuss this. We taxied back so maintenance could troubleshoot. On the way back I did press Autopilot A on and disconnected it. All worked as usual (as far as I could tell); and the Autopilot was not on during the taxi out. Operations did a wonderful job detecting every system in the cat III; autopilot type range and found no issues. They began getting frustrated (I believe); and told us that we must have done something to make it happen. I had to refuse the aircraft and called the duty manager for help downing that aircraft. I asked them to pull the flight recorder to see what exactly happened. I believe I didn't describe the incident well enough to give them the direction to look. The flight recorder was indeed pulled; and copied. I could be completely wrong; and that's ok; but I'm interested in what was the issue. I'm writing this as they did pull the flight recorder in the hopes we can find the answer.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew returned to the gate for maintenance troubleshooting when the elevator trim moved from the preset value of 4.97 to 5.50 without any pilot actuation of the control wheel trim buttons.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 404 Titan
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Inspection Authority
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach to ZZZZ; pilot reports first strong vibration then an oil pressure decrease on engine left. Emergency checklist performed; propeller put in idle position and engine shutoff. ATC is aware of the issue and the pilot asked for priority landing. One engine landing is performed and the aircraft is parked.The engine GTSIO-520-M have TSN/TSO 952FH and was rebuilt in 20XX. Since rebuilt; no cylinder change or removal occurs. Per EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) and French regulation our company reported to BEA (French NTSB) and engine manufacturer. We replaced the engine in order to return the aircraft to service and decided to inspect the broken engine. We also contacted two engine shops which indicate that the most probable cause is 'counterweight detuning.' Mechanics disassembled the engine in order to find root cause. The inspection report stated one counterweight is broken which could break [a] lot of internal part.If the root cause is the counterweight; the inspection also showned that a lot of connecting rod nuts (locknut 'spiralock') which should be torqued to 550-575 in/lbs was easily removed. The lock system was inoperative on most of them. They could be fit and unfit by hand. This remark should be taken in account because we incriminate the counterweight for many years; but it's possible that the poor quality of these locknuts with age is the root cause (Locking system failure could cause loosening; vibrations; then connecting bolt broke; which broke the counterweight).




Synopsis: Maintenance Manager reported that a Cessna 404 pilot experienced strong vibrations; an oil pressure decrease; and subsequent engine failure on the left engine while on approach.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: I was sent to aircraft to perform an [inspection] with another mechanic (Name) and found the #4 Main Landing Gear Tire worn beyond limits; along with a low O2 bottle. The plane had an outbound flight soon after we arrived so we had very little time to perform our check. We serviced the Crew O2 bottle and changed the tire and signed the logbook off in reference to the AMM task. I had no idea that the Washer (Item 15 in reference to AMM 32-XX-XX-XXX-XXX) was not installed with the axle nut. No abnormalities were present to show that the washer was missing; the safeties were installed like normal and hub cap installed.




Synopsis: B737-700 Maintenance Technician reported that after replacing the tire they realized a washer was not installed.
Date: 201511
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: A321
Aircraft component: Fuselage
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp; Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In order to understand the situation; Air Carrier Y's gates face south and my Air Carrier's gates' face west. For the aircraft to get out to the runways; Taxiway Charlie can be accessed by several taxiways; one of those taxiways being Taxiway Bravo. Shortly after Air Carrier Y's Airbus pushed back off of their gate and subsequently taxied out to Taxiway Charlie via Taxiway Bravo; I; ground support personnel; being the pushback tractor driver on Air Carrier X's 757 gate; was given permission for pushback by [our] Air Carrier X's pilot of the 757-200 outbound flight and proceeded to push the above aircraft back into the ramp area behind Air Carrier Y's gates. I had already stopped once for Air Carrier Y's Airbus that had bypassed the Bravo Taxiway that leads into the ramp area for both air carriers; while using caution since aircraft are always arriving and departing. I had no sooner resumed the pushback from our gate pushing my Air Carrier X's B757-200 towards the ramp area behind Air Carrier Y's gates; when I had to do a rapid; but safe stop of the outbound B757 flight due to a 2nd Airbus A321 aircraft from Air Carrier Y that rapidly came flying into the ramp/gate area off of Taxiway Bravo; narrowly clearing/missing the back of our Air Carrier X's B757-200. My Lead also stated that he too saw the events above happen as well.




Synopsis: A ramp ground support tractor driver describes his efforts to safely push a company outbound B757-200 off of their west facing terminal gates past another air carrier's south facing gates to access Taxiway Bravo. Although cleared for continued pushback; an inbound A321 aircraft suddenly appeared; taxiing into the ramp area narrowly clearing; missing the back of their B757 aircraft.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At gate in DEN briefed Runway 34R departure; Plains 4 McCook Transition. After pushback [we were] issued Runway 8; taxied CS to Spot 6E. Contacted Ground and told 'Taxi to Runway 8 via Mike.' There was one other regional aircraft on Taxiway L. Somewhere on Mike the First Officer silently switched over to Tower frequency 124.3. Unfortunately 124.3 was NOTAMed as OTS starting on the 3rd of the month. I later found this NOTAM located 59' down in the flight paperwork; however it did not say that this was the Runway 8 frequency only that it was OTS. Likewise the ATIS had the remark about the frequency; but did not relate it as the Runway 8 Tower frequency.At some point while we were monitoring the dead Tower frequency (I assumed we were still on Ground) the Controller was trying to contact us to let the RJ go in front. We had the RJ in sight at all times and there was no danger; but after going back to Ground after no response on 124.3 we were scolded for switching over too soon. We had followed our original taxi instructions to Runway 8 and were subsequently cleared for takeoff.This was a case of where the information that we need to know was buried in the minutia of the weather packet and ATIS. In the weather packet if the NOTAM associated the frequency as being the Runway 8 Tower frequency there is a better chance it would have caught our attention. Same for the ATIS; also; if the First Officer would have shared the fact that he was switching Number 1 VHF to Tower we might have trapped the premature switch over. Information overload; airport SID charts now contain an exhaustive list of obstacles - some as small as bushes and stop signs hundreds of feet from the runway. With every insignificant piece of information added the chances of missing something of value goes up. On the ATIS it is common to list when the grass is being cut. I think you get my point.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain missed the fact Tower frequency had been changed by NOTAM; noted that the item was 59 inches down the page.