elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Shortly after sending the release; I was notified by the FO (First Officer) that his EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) (IPAD) was not working and mentioned that he would need charts emailed to him to be able to operate the flight. The charts were sent and I asked the coordinator to verify that was all that was needed to be done which he agreed.All parties who were involved in this overlooked the [operations manual] and misinterpreted that the flight could still operate with the EFB inop as long as the FO had the required charts. With the FO saying he just needed charts and the coordinators telling me that was all that would be required; I did not look up and confirm with the bulletin myself that it was indeed the actual procedure. Going back and reviewing the bulletin; the only way the flight should of operated as a revenue flight was if...The Pilot may use a deadheading/commuting Flight Crewmember's EFB.The Pilot may be replaced with a reserve.With this being a fairly recent change; we were confusing the EFB mount inop (charts required for revenue flight) procedure with what steps should've been taken if the actual EFB failed itself (cannot operate as revenue).




Synopsis: First Officer reports his EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) failed and requested the applicable trip charts to be emailed. His Dispatcher reported he later determined either an EFB should have been borrowed or the pilot replaced. An EFB is required.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Cleared for takeoff with RVR 3;000 in moderate rain. Tower directed initial heading of 080. An arriving flight is conducting an approach and is several miles out. We immediately commenced takeoff roll. During roll; the arriving aircraft announced they were going around. Controller directed them to turn out to the north. During our climbout; I observed the arriving aircraft target on TCAS in close proximity in trail and slightly left co altitude.Apparently Tower is allowed to clear an aircraft for takeoff on the left runway with an approach being conducted to the right runway where the RVR reported on the left runway is well below the minimum RVR of 5;000 required for an approach to the right runway. This creates a situation where the right runway traffic is likely to go around and be in very close proximity to the traffic departing the left runway. The published MAP for is initially straight ahead to 800 feet followed by a left turn. This does not produce separation in a timely manner. Additionally; in this case the tower directed climb out heading of 080 was turning us into the arriving aircraft.




Synopsis: A pilot reported during takeoff roll they observed an aircraft on TCAS that was going around from the parallel runway was close to them.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent for landing; leaving FL180; the 'Right Hydraulic Low Pressure' and 'Manual Rudder Control' annunciators on the overhead panel illuminated. The right hydraulic pressure read nearly zero PSI. The right hydraulic quantity read 16+ (very high). We performed the Hydraulic Pressure Low; L/R quantity Low or Decreasing or Abnormally High Abnormal QRH checklist but the abnormal condition persisted. We declared an emergency with Approach Control and were cleared for a visual approach to Runway XXR.  CFR; as well as Company Maintenance; were notified and joined the common frequency. At 5;000 FT descending we attempted and successfully re-pressurized the right hydraulic system IAW the QRH. We then extended the slats; flaps; and landing gear on schedule per the QRH and landed without incident. CFR conducted a visual inspection of the aircraft and cleared Maintenance to pin the gear and tow the aircraft to the gate.


Second narrative: [Narrative had no additional information].


Synopsis: During their descent an MD-82 flight crew performed appropriate QRH procedures in response to an abnormal hydraulic system condition; declared an emergency; and landed without incident.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise FL340; the airplane made a loud pop; then a bang; followed by a vibration; yaw; and ITT overtemp/N1 overspeed on the right engine. Both power levers reduced immediately. Both engine parameters indicated normal ranges. Flight returned to departure airport and landed overweight without incident. Post flight revealed no exterior damage.


Second narrative: During climb out at approximately FL340; the right engine made popping sounds and the right ITT went well into the amber range. Immediately retarded the throttle and returned to [departure airport].


Synopsis: Cessna Citation Sovereign flight crew reported experiencing a compressor stall in the right engine. They elected to return to the departure airport; and made a successful overweight landing.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Starting System
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After gate arrival; the Captain moved both FUEL CONTROL switches to CUTOUT per SOP. Shortly thereafter; one of the Relief Pilots noticed that the right engine N2 indicator displayed AUTOSTART and approximately 26%. The Captain verified that the FUEL CONTROL switches were both in CUTOFF and attempted to contact the Ramp Agent via flight interphone to insure that ground personnel stayed clear of the right engine. The right engine attempted one more AUTOSTART and then remained shut down. No engine noise was heard in the flight deck during the start attempts. A Maintenance Technician entered the flight deck and reported that ramp personnel had stayed clear of the engine as it had produced smoke and flames during the malfunction. No injuries or visible external damaged occurred during the event. The Captain made the appropriate maintenance logbook and ACARS notification to Maintenance Control; indicating that the right engine had made multiple AUTOSTART attempts with no flight crew action.




Synopsis: After a complete engine shut down at the gate with the Start Levers at CUTOUT; a B787 right engine attempt two uncommanded autostarts which ground personnel reported produced smoke and flames.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: AMA.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Talon (T38)
Operator: Military
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON AMA
Second aircraft: Talon (T38)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was given clearance for an initial to AMA at 055 by Approach Control. Aircraft X readback the altitude correctly. Approach Control told Aircraft X to switch to Tower and report 5 mile initial. Before Aircraft X called Tower; he descended to 050 on his own. Aircraft X called Tower approximately 5 miles from the runway and reported the 5 mile initial. Aircraft X became a direct conflict with Aircraft Y who was turning right base to Runway 22 also at 050. Tower advised Aircraft X that initial altitude was 055 and to climb immediately to avoid Aircraft Y. Aircraft X passed over the top of Aircraft Y. Aircraft X was given the left break at the departure end of the runway. Aircraft Y did a touch and go then proceeded into the right closed traffic pattern. Aircraft Z was given the visual approach to Runway 22 and shipped to Tower approximately 8 miles out. Aircraft Z was given a landing clearance by Tower for Runway 22. Aircraft X entered the left downwind for Runway 22 left closed traffic pattern at 055. Tower advised Aircraft X that the traffic pattern is 050 and descended him to that altitude. Tower issued traffic to Aircraft X about Aircraft Z and vise versa. Aircraft Z reported the T38 in sight and was is told to maintain visual with the traffic. Tower then told Aircraft X to turn right to 090 degrees and maintain 050 for the Aircraft Z traffic. Aircraft X declined the vector and declared minimum fuel. Tower tells Aircraft X another two times to turn right to 090 degrees and maintain 050 for the traffic but Aircraft X declines both vectors & says he is turning left to 220 degrees to land. Tower declared emergency fuel for Aircraft X; told Aircraft Z to turn right to 270 degrees to avoid Aircraft X. Aircraft Z was now heading 270 degrees at 050. Aircraft Y was in the right downwind approaching Aircraft Z also at 050. Tower advised Aircraft Y to climb immediately to 060 for traffic and issued a traffic alert. Tower advised Aircraft Y twice to climb because his data block read that he was at 051. Aircraft Y stated after the traffic alert that he is level at 060 even through the data block still read 051. All three aircraft landed without incident.




Synopsis: AMA Controller described a VFR pattern conflict when an inbound military aircraft failed to comply with published/assigned 'initial procedure' altitudes resulting in a conflict with traffic on base.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing Runway 24R; we were taxiing south on Romeo and crossing Charlie taxiway with a plan to turn left on Bravo.  As we neared the access road between Charlie and Bravo; First Officer and I noticed a vehicle traveling eastbound on the access road at a high rate of speed (40+ MPH).  Fearing the vehicle wouldn't stop short of Romeo; First Officer and I abruptly applied brakes to bring the aircraft to an immediate stop.  We called LAX Ground Control and they in-turn notified LAX City Operations.  The offending vehicle was pulled over by LAX operations as it ended up about 1/3 of the way into Romeo taxiway. We verified with the flight attendants that they and the passengers were not injured and continued to the gate where we coordinated with maintenance to have an additional inspections of the tires and brakes due to the nature of our abrupt stop.[I suggest] some method of illuminating aircraft on taxiways and/or vehicles on access roads would be hugely beneficial.




Synopsis: Captain reported a near collision at LAX; with a vehicle crossing Taxiway R at high speed between Taxiways C and B.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Minimum Equipment List (MEL)
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: This ERJ-190 aircraft had two MELs: TAT-1 Fail and MFD-2 inoperative. First of all; the information in the MEL is inadequate and incomplete regarding the TAT-1 fail as follows: ...CAT status is degraded due to the requirement that the source be selected to First Officer's side as per the MEL; but is required to be selected to the Captain's side per our autoland procedure; but no mention of this in the MEL. On every leg we had autothrust fail at 1;500 FT which I strongly suspect is due to the TAT-1 being inoperative; but no mention of it in the MEL. Various VNAV performance calculations [were] unavailable on Captain's side but no mention of it in the MEL. And even more importantly; dispatching with the MFD-2 inoperative made it especially difficult since various VNAV capabilities were compromised on the Captain's side. MEL needs to be corrected. Dispatching with multiple MELs is a bad idea to begin with; and particularly with these two.

Callback: Reporter stated his Air Carrier just recently issued a Temporary Revision in their ERJ-190 MEL to show the CAT-2 and CAT-3 Approach downgrade due to the TAT-1 fail. They should never have departed with the First Officer's MFD-2 also deferred as inoperative; since the source for TAT would have to be viewed on the First Officer's MFD; which was not viewable. He still believes the autothrust fail and 'ding' indication at 1;500 FT were due to the TAT-1 failure; since the ERJ-190's aircraft does an Autothrust System check at 1;500 FT.



Synopsis: Captain reports that information in their ERJ-190 MEL is inadequate; incomplete and did not indicate the aircraft's CAT-2/CAT-3 would be downgraded with the deferral of TAT-1. The First Officer's MFD-2 had also been deferred and was suppose to be the source selected for the TAT-1 deferral; but was not viewable.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bell Helicopter 407
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing a new crew member training flight; I was the PIC in a Bell 407. I had a non-flying brand new crew member in the left seat. The crew member was being trained on law enforcement mission related equipment. I hover taxied to a takeoff point at the center of the airfield at a non-towered airport. I announced my intention to depart to the southeast which would take me across runway XY [intersecting runway]. The winds were at about 200 degrees. I neither saw nor heard any other aircraft on CTAF.Just as I was about to cross runway XY; I noticed that another aircraft (a high wing fixed wing) had just crossed in front of me during its takeoff from runway XY. I passed behind the other aircraft slightly lower as it climbed and departed to the south. It appeared that the other aircraft never even noticed that an incident had occurred. The other aircraft never made any radio calls. I estimate that we came within 150 feet of each other.My attention to the training crew member's duties during the critical phase of flight (takeoff) was the main contributing factor. I took my attention off of clearing my departure and created the situation which could have ended horribly. [We adhere] to the sterile cockpit rule and I violated that procedure. After the incident; I briefed our entire unit and discussed what I should have done and will do in the future to prevent this from ever happening again.




Synopsis: Bell 407 pilot reported NMAC on takeoff at non-towered airport with intersecting runways.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: This flight started the night prior when my normal First Officer had flown someone a few days earlier who contracted COVID-19.  That night; I was left trying to find a new First Officer for the next morning's flight at XA:00am.  I found an FO who has not flown in a while.  Our flight to ZZZ was uneventful.  On climbout from ZZZ the Tower Controller had issued a speed of 230 kts and a climb to and maintain 10;000 feet.  I asked the FO to run the climb checklist. While doing so; the Controller issued us instructions.  My FO was caught off guard and looked at me as if to say; 'I didn't hear that.'  I thought I heard and understood the instructions to be 'Normal speed and climb 12;000 feet and I read back 'Normal speed; climb 12;000 Aircraft X'.  I then began to climb.  This put me into conflict with Aircraft Y that was in the downwind for ZZZ; I never got a TCAS or TA/RA alert from my TCAS system.I know that after the instruction to proceed with normal speed; there was another instruction after that statement.  I just cannot remember what it was.  The crew change and heavy workload contributed to the misunderstanding.  I do not know what could have been done differently to avoid this in the future.  I do wonder why ATC would have pilots turn left towards another aircraft even if they were planning to keep the aircraft separated by 2;000 feet. I have flown this departure from ZZZ many times in the past and the point where we were issued normal speed was completely normal from past experience.  I really wish that ATC would issue a climb straight ahead until the departing aircraft is no longer in a position to potentially interfere with other aircraft."




Synopsis: Corporate Captain reported an incorrect read back for altitude which caused their aircraft to climb an additional 2;000 feet resulting in an airborne conflict with another aircraft.