elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departing during climb out (through 10;000 ft) we had a right engine fire indication. We leveled off at 16;000ft and accomplished emergency checklist. It appeared that we had a bleed air issue but with the engine fire light out we were still getting intermittent fire bell. We decided to treat it as an engine fire which ended up shutting down the right engine and using one extinguisher bottle in the right engine. At that point; the fire bell and fire lights ceased. We diverted to a nearby airport; where we had emergency equipment standing by. Normal single engine approach and landing was conducted and fire/rescue crews met us on the runway. Fire crew concluded that the fire was present and aircraft was secure. Fire crews escorted us while we were under tow by an FBO back to their ramp.From what I understand; this aircraft; has had a history of false fire indications on the right engine in the past.


Second narrative: QRC should be co-located with QRH. Currently it is placed adjacent to normal checklist. On a daily basis we repeatedly select the normal checklist and purposely ignore QRC. When an emergency occurs; we still have tendency to reach for QRH; and don't have the habit pattern yet built to take the extra step to determine whether or not emergency is on QRC (the card we ignore each time we reach for normal checklist card). If QRH and QRC are co-located; it would make this extra step more streamlined as well as keeping the QRC out of the daily checklist.


Synopsis: CE-560 flight crew reported a right engine fire warning alert during climbout. After leveling at 16;000 ft the fire bell was intermittent so the crew assumed a bleed air leak; followed the QRH; shut the engine down; and diverted.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While advancing thrust levers to set trust; aircraft slowly yawed to right. N2 decreasing and right yawLoss of power on number 2 engine. Kept aircraft straight and rejected takeoff around 10 knots.After starting both engines after sitting for 75 minutes at the runway threshold in deteriorating weather conditions; pilots should double check proper engine indication and resist operational pressure to depart quickly (we were expecting [the destination] to groundstop again due to thunderstorms)


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


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported a rejected takeoff due to a loss of power from the number 2 engine.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon landing; a compartment in the rear galley popped open and its contents (soda cans) ejected into the rear galley and rear aisle area. Both Flight Attendant Y and myself were startled by this because we had been VERY thorough in latching and double checking the latches on the galley compartments as we secured the galley for landing. I had double checked visually and Flight Attendant Y had physically touched each latch before we took our jumpseats for landing. I take extra effort with this galley for this very reason. I and Flight Attendant Y observed that the latch on the compartment in question was still green (locked) and yet it had popped open during landing. We received two rings at this point as the noise had been noted from the two flight attendants in the front and they called to ask if everything was ok. I explained what had occurred. The flight deck contacted mechanics and they reported promptly to investigate the situation. The mechanic stated that maintenance had received quite a number of calls about the latches on this type of galley. Either the bottom latch [is] failing; OR the top hinged part of the slide in galley type door [is] failing. I think the more traditional twist down red latches are easier to use.

Callback: The reporter clarified that the cabinet involved is at counter height and the doors are hinged at the top. Some doors slide into the cabinet to stow and some fold up and stick open magnetically. The Flight Attendant jumpseats are directly in front of the cabinets.



Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reported a rear galley compartment opened during landing ejecting its contents. The latch had been properly locked. Maintenance indicated they had received numerous calls about the latches on this type of galley.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was pushed back for an ETOPs departure. On the taxi way there was a tow bar disconnect issue. This was inspected by unknown personnel. There was no logbook entry as required by the company manual and an ETOPS check was not accomplish either.  Seemed that the departure time was more of a concern.Bring it back to the gate if possible do the inspections that are required document the paperwork.




Synopsis: Aircraft was pushed back prior to completion of ETOPS and other checks.
Date: 202012
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: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Two back to back flights had people scheduled to work type X Aircraft gates with no (zero) type X Aircraft experience.  The flight out of [Gate] XX1 at ZZZ had several maintenance items at the gate.  Two or three mechanics wasted their time and our time due to lack of type X Aircraft experience.  A fourth mechanic got us out of town after someone tracked him down at a different gate.  Another flight took a half hour delay because no one on the ramp had ever worked a type X Aircraft.  30 extra minutes to load bags after someone that had worked a type X Aircraft showed up to help.  Worse yet; no delay information was available without the cockpit being proactive.  Zero communication via the gate screen in front of the aircraft (at one point it changed to the next flight on that gate); nothing in the companies message updates; no updated flight service form; no call from Local Control.  Each posted delay (and there were several) was initiated by the pilot contacts.  The Local Control seemed to be the last to know and blamed the delay on the baggage system. The tug driver told us it was that the employees scheduled to work that gate had no experience on the type X Aircraft.  With all of the cutbacks and furloughs; we need to make sure that each gate is staffed with people that know the type of aircraft that will be parked there.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported maintenance and ground personnel with no experience on specific aircraft types are being utilized due to staffing cutbacks.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; 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: Descending through approximately 32;000 feet we received an IAS Disagree. I hand flew the airplane; comparing the stand-by A/S (airspeed) indicator to our instruments and the FO (First Officer) A/S dropped to 50 knots and the Captain side was somewhat close in speed to the stand-by. We also had an ENG light and soon after had ALT disagree with the FO side losing its altimeter. The speeds and altitude disagree lights came on 3 different times on descent and approach; followed by momentary corrections before disagreeing again for longer durations. The Captain side was more aligned to the stand-by than the FO side; but it wasn't clearly reliable either. We had a slightly higher approach than normal based on lack of confidence in the airspeed but had a smooth and uneventful landing.This same exact scenario happened in [this same aircraft last week] upon descent. The aircraft sat overnight during heavy rain the night before and the mechanics said they drained the TAT (Total Air Temperature) line; which was full of fluid and they opened an 'access panel' and water rushed out. The system appeared to work normally after clearing the water and it was signed off for service with no issues on the return flight. The aircraft also sat the night before our flight; but we did not experience heavy rain overnight.The mechanic did a bite test before we left the cockpit and said both Air Data Computers were fried. Being the rainy season and this issue happening twice in a week; leads to questions as to the safety of the operation of this aircraft until the cause is clearly determined and corrected.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported experiencing erroneous airspeed indications later traced to water in the pitot-static system.
Date: 201412
Location: ROA.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ROA
ATC / advisory: TRACON ROA
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Unclear as to the cause of the warning; we believe we were clear of the terrain according to the lights we could see. The event took place at Roanoke airport at night on a visual approach to 24. The approach controller turned us towards Roanoke airport at 4000 FT. The runway was in sight we were cleared for a visual approach into 24. Upon descending out of 4000 FT we received a 'terrain pull up' aural warning. We executed the egpws procedure adding full power and pitching up. The controller leveled us off at 5000 FT and vectored us around for another approach. We were given a descent to 4000 FT; once level we were given vectors back to the airport. When we approached the same mountain range as before the 'terrain' aural warning sounded again. This time without the 'pull up'. As we were climbing to 5000; another aircraft was descending to 5;000 FT and given vectors away from us. They were never close enough for an 'RA' or 'TA'. We were then vectored for an ils 34 and landed.


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


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on night visual approach to ROA. Crew stated they felt they were clear of terrain.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower HOU
Second aircraft: Bombardier Learjet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Hobby was using one Controller for Clearance; Ground; and Tower. It was extremely busy with multiple Company aircraft pushing and arriving; plus Maintenance aircraft on frequency as well as several general aviation aircraft needing clearances. We had problems getting a pushback clearance and clearance to taxi. We received a clearance to taxi via Echo; cross 12L and 17 and hold short 12R. This is unusual because at HOU normally you are told to hold short of 12L; contact Tower. In this case; this was Tower; so we proceeded. As we crossed 12L; we heard a transmission state someone is crossing the runway we are landing on. I looked right in time to see a Lear (outside First Officer's window) crossing overhead. I looked left out my window to see it continue over us and descend to 10-20 feet over runway; fly down runway to departure end; and finally execute a go-around. I estimate the aircraft went over the top of us 20-30 feet above the fuselage. We were crossing the numbers; and due to the short length of 12L he had to be aiming for the approach end of the runway. Tower stated we were correct and had been cleared to cross; and there was a disagreement between the Tower and the Lear as to which runway he was cleared to land on. It is way too busy at Hobby for only one Controller for everything including using crossing runways.There was obviously some miscommunication as to which runway the other aircraft was cleared to land on. I think a significant contributing factor was the exceptional amount of radio activity due to Ground and Tower frequencies being combined. [Both crewmembers] commented that it seemed like there was too much going on to have the frequencies combined like that. For my part; while I had turned on the wing and logo lights; I don't recall if I had turned on the strobes. At times in the past; I have refrained from doing this at night so as not to 'distract' other nearby taxiing aircraft. From now on; I will always turn on the strobes at night when crossing a runway.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a Learjet flew about 20-30 feet over their aircraft as they crossed the runway with a valid clearance.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Helicopter
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ASE; Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Tower ASE
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X flew through the Arrival and Departure Areas at 11;500; not talking to ATC. The helicopter came in direct conflict with Aircraft Y on the LINDZ9 departure. The Controller had to expedite climb and rates of turn. The conflict alerts went off on the radar. Aircraft Z was delayed on the ground after; while the helicopter was in the departure area in unsafe proximity to the LINDZ9 track.Aspen has very specific IFR routes that we are allowed to use with the mountains and high MVAs. When VFR aircraft fly through the departure and arrival areas; it is unsafe if we aren't talking to them to verify altitude; intentions and control them to avoid conflict. Aspen needs a Class C Airspace or ARSA to require two way radio communication with VFR's.




Synopsis: Aspen Tower Controller reported a problem with a helicopter and traffic departing Aspen.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff red config light illuminated with associated aural alert. Red EICAS message 'config gear not down' was annunciated. I recycled the gear at 4;000 FT to see if that would clear the warning and was unsuccessful. I informed ATC that we wanted to return for landing. We weighed approximately 196;000 LBS. Uneventful landing was made and we taxied to the gate where the aircraft was taken out of service.




Synopsis: B757 Captain experiences a configuration warning after takeoff with an EICAS message 'CONFIG GEAR NOT DOWN'. After cycling the gear with no change; the Captain elects to return to the departure airport.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We departed LAS off of Runway 1R; on the RADYR 2 Departure; except we were told to maintain 6000 ft. All was normal; but ATC did not climb us as expected. Departure frequency was 125.9. As we approached HRRLY; I called ATC and stated we needed to climb. (XA18Z). He gave us a climb to FL 190. As he did so; we got a 'Caution; Obstacle.' The First Officer was flying and he disconnected the autopilot and autothrottles and added power to climb thrust and adjusted the flight path. Once clear of the obstacle; autopilot and autothrottles were re-engaged. No further incident.


Second narrative: During departure from Las Vegas we were assigned the RADYR 2 RNAV Departure off of Runway 1R. Prior to departure we were assigned 6000 ft. as a top altitude by ATC. As we climbed out and leveled off at 6000 ft.; we turned and were approaching HRRLY intersection we were given an 'unable next altitude' message on the FMC. Shortly after the message; the terrain prior to GRUDN began turning yellow. The Captain and I agreed we needed to immediately request a higher altitude from ATC. As we requested the altitude the terrain became a solid yellow block on our display. As ATC was giving us clearance to a higher altitude we received a 'Caution Obstacle' alert from our GPWS system. I disconnected the autopilot and autothrottle; added power; and corrected the flight path while climbing clear of the caution without further incident.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that while on an RNAV SID to LAS; ATC failed to issue a timely climb to comply with altitude restriction and terrain; resulting in the crew taking evasive action in response to a GPWS caution.