elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202202
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While operating Aircraft X ZZZ-ZZZ1; at approximately FL310; and approximately 50 miles NW of ZZZZZ intersection; we notice a slight flicker from the master caution light that immediately extinguished. A few minutes later the light illuminated again. At this point we were able to determine it was the OVHT/DET indication on the recall pad. Indication remained for only a few seconds then extinguished again. All engine indications were normal. A short time later the engine fire warning system illuminated along with the fire warning bell. The number one engine light was illuminated. This indication only lasted for about 2 seconds then extinguished. Again; all engine indications appeared normal. I directed the First Officer to fly the airplane and communicated with ATC while I reviewed the engine fire checklist. At this point however; all indications were normal. Considering all factors; including destination; night time; sporadic and intermittent nature of the warnings; I elected to return to ZZZ after conferring with my First Officer. We elected to accept an overweight landing rather than risk the warning returning during a hold while trying to burn fuel. After reviewing the overweight landing procedure we elected to [request priority handling] and return to ZZZ. Approach and arrival was fully briefed; Flight Attendants were advised of the situation; as well as passengers. I elected to perform the landing as my First Officer was on his second day of IOE. I then took control of the aircraft and landed on Runway XXR. Landing weight was approximately 154;000 lbs; and landing was very soft. After turning off runway we stopped and had crash fire/rescue visually confirm there were no fire indications either with brakes or engines. We then proceed to the gate and deplaned normally. All defects were submitted via ACARS ELB.




Synopsis: Captain reported receiving engine overheat and fire warning system indications which resulted in return to departure airport.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Booster Pump
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Landed aircraft with fuel out of balance due to a fuel pump malfunction.  Near the top of climb we noticed the left outer fuel tank was about 2;500 lbs less than the right outer and the left inner was about 2;500 lbs greater than the right inner tank.  At some point in the climb one of the left inner tank pumps had failed but we received no warning.  No fault lights illuminated and no ECAM message.  We were busy with thunderstorms or we likely would have discovered it sooner.  Our Crossfeed checklist would not fix the problem because the line from that tank to its isolation valve becomes depressurized in this scenario (one pump failed but selected on and the other selected on and operating normally; both showing green with the output bar on the failed tank symbol horizontal) thus no green line to the isolation valve on the side that is to feed the manifold.  We calculated sufficient fuel to continue to destination and land with 8;000 to 9;000 lbs of usable fuel.  We ended up with about 3;000 lbs trapped in the left inner (total fuel 11;500). Aircraft flew normally all the way to landing with no ill effects resulting from the out of balance condition.  Verbally debriefed Maintenance about the out of balance condition for landing and made AML entry for what we observed on the fuel panel in flight. Subtle fuel tank pump failure.  No significant indication.  I was not aware a fuel pump could stop output and not give an amber light or warning so perhaps better systems knowledge would have helped.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reports a left inner fuel tank pump failure during climb that results in a fuel imbalance without any indications of pump failure. Attempts to transfer fuel are not successful but flight is able to continue to destination.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Tower, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Workload; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working Local Control. VFR weather. An E-170 was very short final when I observed a target on the ASDE-X just south of a taxiway intersection. I immediately notified the supervisor and picked up some binoculars along with multiple others in the tower cab. We all observed nothing in that area. The arrival was already passed the threshold and in his flare when the ASDE-X alerted 'warning; RWY XX occupied' and lit up the false target and the arrival aircraft. I felt it would be unsafe to send the aircraft around since they were in a critical stage of flight and continued monitoring the situation; scanning the area along with the supervisor on duty. Once safely rolling out; I asked the aircraft to scan the area as they taxied by and they observed nothing. The false target disappeared shortly thereafter. A county mobile vehicle got on the runway about 5 minutes later to do a daily routine inspection. I asked the county mobile vehicle to inspect the area also and they didn't see anything either.I feel like I handled the situation correctly. I felt it would be very unsafe to send the arrival on short final around at the time the ASDE-X went off (especially after observing nothing in the area of the false target). Had I observed any disturbance in the area of the false target; I would have taken a different course of action.




Synopsis: Local Controller reported a false ASDE-X warning of conflicting traffic on the runway while an aircraft was on short final. The controllers in the Tower scanned the area; but were unable to find a reason for the erroneous warning and the aircraft landed uneventfully.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The ambient temperature was 37 degrees C at the time of takeoff. Initial climb out was uneventful. The First Officer was flying the aircraft. At approximately 15;000; the Master Warning and Tail Comp Temp Hi lights illuminated. We performed the memory items and in less than 60 seconds both lights went out. We leveled at 17;000 and I completed the QRH checklist. I elected to return to our departure airport. I notified ATC; Dispatch; Operations and Maintenance. We did NOT declare an emergency. Descent and landing were in accordance with the QRH procedures and were uneventful.




Synopsis: While in the climb an MD-83 flight crew followed the associated checklists in response to a tail compartment high tempertaure warning then requested and were cleared to return to their departure airport.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Fatigue
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I am going to focus on just the period following initial cabin door closure and eventual takeoff which was a period of just over 2 hours.  There is more; but I will focus on that.  Aircraft had inop APU.  At initial door closure; ground air source was removed. Ground staff was unable to start the engine.  There was no cool air for the aircraft cabin.  Temperatures reaching as high as 92 degrees but mostly stayed at 90 degrees. Customers and crew verbally complain of heat.  Visible observations include people reaching for air vents; people fanning themselves with objects such as the Safety Information Card; perspiration and sweat.  Passengers complained of light headiness; dizziness.  Cups of water were distributed.  PA was made to request window shades lowered (all were closed at the time boarding began but some shades had been opened by customers after they boarded).  All reported to the Captain by the Purser.  Jetway was returned to aircraft; cabin doors disarmed; and 1L door opened by CSA.  Passengers deplaned with luggage.  One baby was observed to have 'flushed' (red) skin upon deplaning.  Some passengers appeared lethargic and stepping of aircraft unsteadily. Captain exited the aircraft.  I sat on an aisle chair just in the jetway and just outside the aircraft; attempting to cool my body temperature.  My undergarments were soaked with sweat.  I felt lethargic; lacked mental clarity; lightheaded and dizzy; stomach felt knotted; my temperament was irritable at times; apathetic at some other times.  Approximately; 10-15 minutes later; aircraft was re-boarded with pax and their luggage.  Aircraft door closed and engine started.  This provided minimum air flow and no relief from the heat for the next 44 minutes of taxi and waiting in line for takeoff. With engine power at that time; temperatures still recording at 90 degrees in the cabin and at best; 85 degrees in cabin.  Customers still reaching for air vents; fanning themselves; verbally complaining; etc...Please note that I was able to note temperatures with a thermometer I possess.




Synopsis: B737-900 Flight Attendant reported extreme heat inside the aircraft due to APU failure while on the ground.
Date: 201207
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We] got unreliable crew O2 indication on climb and in cruise. Notified Maintenance and they wanted us to continue on to destination with erroneous crew O2 indication.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports unreliable crew oxygen pressure indication during climb and cruise. Maintenance indicated that the crew should continue to destination.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We performed a high speed aborted takeoff at 110 kts. We received a master caution message on EICAS 'rudder hydraulic system 2 inop'. We aborted takeoff as briefed and exited the runway. After running the QRH the issue was resolved and after speaking with dispatcher and maintenance; the flight continued without interruption. The airplane handled normally without any further issue.


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


Synopsis: ERJ-145 flight crew reported a high speed rejected takeoff.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
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; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach with flaps at 25 selected and indicated flap lever selected to 30 but flap gauge stayed at 25. Initiated go around and completed checklist and [advised] ATC. Landed with flaps at 25. Landing weight 135;000. Log book entry made and advised outbound crew and maintenance of flap issue. Advised maintenance that no flap over speed observed.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported executing a go-around after the flaps would not extend beyond 25 degrees on approach.
Date: 201601
Location: MRI.Tower, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D MRI
ATC / advisory: Tower MRI
Second aircraft: Military Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound to MRI. He is a primary only target without a transponder and Mode C altitude readout. I instructed them to enter right downwind for runway 25 at MRI. EDF tower was working Aircraft Y to runway 6 at EDF.  I observed Aircraft Y on the downwind to RWY 6 at EDF close to our airspace boundary.  At that time I issued the traffic to Aircraft X and Aircraft X said he had them in sight. I issued a cautionary wake turbulence advisory and told Aircraft X that Aircraft Y would pass off his side inbound to EDF. At that time I could see Aircraft Y turning on the base to EDF RWY6. Aircraft Y spilled into MRI airspace putting them in close proximity to Aircraft X.  A short time later EDF tower called me and told me that Aircraft Y was getting a TCAS advisory and doing a right 360 degree turn in my airspace. Luckily we had no other aircraft inbound from the Northwest and the Northwest portion of our airspace can become very congested with inbound and outbound aircraft.The Northwest corridor is too close to EDF final putting small aircraft in very close proximity to large and heavy aircraft in and out of EDF. By adding the chunk of airspace from the MRI/EDF gate extension or not allowing heavy aircraft to stay in the closed pattern at EDF may alleviate this hazard. Also if EDF could coordinate prior to heavy aircraft using the RWY6 pattern at EDF it would give MRI the opportunity to be aware there may be a spill over into our airspace.




Synopsis: An aircraft responding to an RA in the traffic pattern at EDF entered the MRI Class D airspace without clearance.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Reverser Lockout
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other On Landing
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Company Policy; Staffing; Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I; Mechanic X; was] assigned Job Card XXX-010 on an A320 aircraft in our Hangar [in ZZZ]. [I] accomplished Step-1 of Job Card on a V2500 engine. In Part Five of Step-1; [Job Card states] make Thrust Reverser (T/R) unserviceable for Maintenance (Deactivate). Not being familiar with the V2500 Engine Thrust Reverser System; we asked a fellow Mechanic how to deactivate the T/R on the V2500. We used the HYDRAULIC CONTROL UNIT (HCU) Deactivation pin. After pinning HCU; verified [reverser] deactivation per Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 71-13-00. Thrust Reversers did not deploy upon landing. Step-4 on Job Card [is a problem]. Suggest separate sign-offs and graphics for Deactivation and Activation in Heavy Maintenance Visit (HMV). Manager notified.


Second narrative: While accomplishing Job Card XXX-004; the proper Thrust Reverser (T/R) lockout pins [with streamers] were not installed due to the fact that there are none in ZZZ. I; [Mechanic Y]; was tasked with closing the T/Rs; closing the pylon panels and closing cowlings. Due to the fact that improper pins were installed; there were no streamers [attached to the pins]. The removal of the [Reverser] pins was inadvertently missed and there was no Operational Check of the T/R after Job Card completion. The A320 aircraft left and landed at its next destination where the Thrust Reversers did not deploy on landing.I did not see lockout pins and closed cowlings. Event was identified in the arrival station. I have no information on what happened at that station. Suggest using proper pins with long streamers; change paperwork to have second Mechanic verify pins removed because there is no indication of T/Rs deactivated. Also add to paperwork; Thrust Reverser Operational Check per Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 78-31-00.


Synopsis: Three Mechanics; unfamiliar with the V2500 engine on A320 aircraft; report about their involvement with installing improper Thrust Reverser lockout pins in the Hydraulic Control Units (HCU). Reversers did not deploy on landing after aircraft was released from Heavy Maintenance Visit (HMV).
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CID.TRACON, IA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E CID
ATC / advisory: TRACON CID
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Staffing; Company Policy; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was working the Cab Radar position and fulfilling the CIC (Controller in Charge) duties. The facility had three Controllers for the duration of the evening which was needed to cover all radar and tower control positions. We also had two trainees we needed to train on Ground Control. Inclement weather due to snow and low visibility. Local and Ground had several vehicles in the movement area. During the time of incident; I was trying to monitor tower operations which caused a distraction in my own radar duties. Aircraft X was handed off at 11000 feet and we cannot descend until past ALO airspace. For some reason I thought ALO was closed and Center had that airspace. On initial contact I descended Aircraft X to 4000 feet. I realized at that time that ALO was open; so I called ALO for a point-out and they approved it. The aircraft was in ALO airspace before the coordination. No other aircraft were an issue. Although the radar position was not busy (one of the reasons I wasn't paying much attention) the tower positions were busy with vehicles on/off runway and aircraft arriving/departing. If needed; this report can be shared with any party deemed necessary. CID needs more manning to cover all control positions instead of combining positions majority of the time. Management should staff more people on these shifts. Provide realistic shift guidance for CICs. In a facility with Clearance Delivery; Flight Data; Ground Control; Local Control and a TRACON; three Controllers is NOT enough to staff the facility to ensure safety in the airspace.




Synopsis: CID Controller assigned as Controller in Charge combined with Radar responsibilities reported an aircraft was cleared into ALO airspace without proper handoff coordination.