elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
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: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We encountered a compressor stall on the #2 engine at the same time we were leveling off at FL390. In running the Engine Limit or Surge or Stall; QRC/QRH Checklist; it was determined that the engine was now operating normally. After conferring with the entire Crew; Dispatch; and MX; the decision to divert to [a suitable alternate] was made.With the engine running normally there was some discussion between the Captain and me over whether we should burn additional fuel before landing to prevent an overweight landing. We also discussed that using Captain's Emergency Authority was required to land overweight. Dispatch seemed to think an overweight landing was acceptable; so we elected to land overweight. We landed overweight but uneventfully.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate after experiencing a compressor stall on Number 2 engine.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise at FL370; we noticed that that the right fuel valve closed light was illuminated bright. We began to discuss the possible risks and contingency plans as we pulled out the QRH. We contacted the Company. The right engine began to roll back and then shortly after; came back to full power. We advised ATC of our situation and began to plan a divert then shortly after the right engine rolled back to idle again. We again advised ATC. We decided that ZZZ was the best option to land as soon as practical. We followed the QRH checklist for engine failure through to the Single Engine Landing Checklist. On the ground; we were met by the emergency vehicles that followed us to the FBO. The Captain was calm and professional through the whole flight and all procedures were followed in accordance with the company and manufactures recommendations. Great coordination was maintained between all parties involved including the crew; the company and ATC.




Synopsis: B737 pilot reported an indication of a fuel valve anomaly; followed by erratic engine operation on the associated engine.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Taking off after rotation and gear knob selected up; we hear a loud noise coming from the nose wheel well. Before being transfer to Departure frequency we ask Tower to stay in the pattern to solve this malfunction. The warning message landing gear disagreements popped up and the red box on the nose EICAS was present. We continue with the QRH procedure of LG/Disagree and recycle the landing gear down and return back to the airport. We did a low pass over the runway with Tower authorization to confirm; visually that we have all landing gear down. We return once again for a precautionary landing after being told by Maintenance to come back to base. We landed safely; and overweight by 300 LBS with a soft landing. We were escort to the gate after landing. [We were] landing over weight due landing gear malfunction by 300 LBS with a smooth landing. This aircraft had previous record of nose landing gear noise. Air return; go around; and low pass over the airport. [We had a] flight delay; due Maintenance on the airplane before this flight; long duty day.




Synopsis: An EMB145 EICAS alerted LG/DISAGREE after takeoff with a red box around the nose gear so an emergency was declared; the QRH complied with; and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I arrived at base for my shift and the aircraft and day crew were gone; out on their X flight of the day. I clocked on in and got my flight release. They returned to base an hour plus later. The day pilot went inside to enter his flight while I refueled the aircraft and conducted a pre-flight inspection. I came inside; and began discussing the day's events with the off-going pilot. We were still talking 30 minutes later when another flight request came in. I accepted the flight; submitted my forms; quickly finished up a briefing with the crew; and walked out to the aircraft. The flight was uneventful and was completed without issue.The passenger had required full COVID-19 precautionary measures; so we decontaminated the aircraft and ourselves prior to entering the base. I entered our flight info into the records; then began closing out our maintenance log book. I saw that the 10-15 hour re-torque inspection for the float step was overdue. I double-checked the numbers and the logbook to determine if it was actually overflown. Unfortunately; the latter was the case so I placed the aircraft and base out of service then notified the on-call mechanic; and the manager.Going forward; the feeling of being hurried will be a cue to throttle back and be extra meticulous. Paying particular attention to things out of the ordinary will help against complacency. After a few months of slow flight volume; our base conducted [X] flights in [Y] days. That should be a cue to double-check the numbers.One possible control that would also be helpful is to patch the software to highlight inspections that are due within 10 hours in the section of the flight release request. We currently have to enter a password to override inspections that show overdue to complete the flight release request; which is a great prompt. Highlighting inspections due in less than 10 flight hours in yellow may help prevent this kind of oversight in the future.




Synopsis: Pilot reported flying aircraft with an overdue inspection.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were given instructions to descend via the KORRY 4 to LGA and were assigned a 290 knot transition speed. I programmed that speed and we managed the descent down to the bottom altitude of 10000ft. MSL on the KORRY 4. We maintained 290 knots in the decent until reaching 10000ft. when the managed speed changed to 250 knots. ATC then asked us if we were assigned a speed upon which we replied we were given 290 knot transition. We were then given a descent to 9000ft. and told the aircraft behind us was flying at a faster speed. We complied and continued to fly the RNAV Visual Runway 31. The airplane automatically slowed to 250 knots at 10000ft. MSL to comply with speed restriction below 10000. Proper action would have been to step down a level of automation and select 290 speed upon level off at 10000. It is very important to be aware of these speed assignments with respect to spacing on the arrival. It would be a good idea to brief any assigned speed and discuss the possibility of problems with the automation; especially at this altitude where managed speed automatically changes to 250 knots. Good communication; situational awareness; and close monitoring of automation is very important through all phases of flight.




Synopsis: Captain reported slowing down below assigned speed because aircraft automation anticipated for the 10000ft airspeed regulations.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 0.75
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The weather conditions at the airport were [visibility] ¾ miles; FG (fog); VV002. The Centurion had just executed a missed approach due to the weather and was on RADAR vectors for another ILS to Runway XX. When the Centurion was about 2 miles south of the airport; he reported the approach end of Runway YY insight and requested a landing clearance. I immediately coordinated with the Local Controller for approval to send the Centurion to Runway YY. As soon as the Local Controller gave the approval; I cleared the Centurion for a Visual Approach; without hesitance; and switched him to the Tower. I was aware of the weather conditions; but I reacted to the pilots request before thinking the situation through. [I need to] maintain vigilance and attention to detail.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reacted to the pilot's 'runway in sight' declaration and issued an inappropriate Visual Approach clearance; given the reported weather.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Bird strike at approximately 300-400 AGL during a visual approach. Heard impact close to cockpit. No noted changes to engine nor flight performance. Close to ground with clearance to land; we decided to continue to landing with First Officer (FO) flying. Excellent approach to landing on centerline.  No degradation of flight controls nor degradation of braking on rollout. Master caution appeared as we exited the runway on high speed taxiway.  Noted HYD3 fail alert. Continued with after landing checklist and contacted ground control. Clearance to hold short of another runway. We complied with taxi instructions as the FO read the QRH for the Hyd3 fail. FO covered the consequences and contacted ramp control to forward our issue along and pass call to maintenance.  Captain performed a basic taxi control check and conferred with FO regarding the need for a tow in to the gate due to perceived lack of control in tight right turns as per limitations in QRH. Captain felt able to make the turn on to taxiway after crossing the runway to get as close to the gate as possible.  While attempting right turn onto the taxiway; and with the help of information from the following aircraft; the decision was made by the crew to stop the turn and shutdown until maintenance could tow the aircraft. Maintenance and airfield ops came to the aircraft to commence the tow into a closer gate; and found that a large Hawk had impacted the front of the nose gear shearing the hydraulic line and emptying the number 3 hydraulic system.




Synopsis: On short final; an MD-11 was impacted by a bird; which sheared a hydraulic line in the nose gear assembly. This resulted in a loss of the Number 3 Hydraulic System and ability to taxi. The crew requested and received a tow to parking.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: KZAK.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A KZAK
ATC / advisory: Center KZAK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We just crossed 45N40 on our oceanic clearance FL380. The next waypoints on our current clearance is 41N30; FATMO and AMAKR. At XA:13; we received a CPDLC reroute message from SFO:/CLEAREDROUTE CLEARANCEARRIVAL:BDEGA2.AMAKRAMAKRWe printed the message and selected the load prompt on the FMC. We compared the printed message with the FMC; but failed to notice that 41N30 and FATMO were deleted. Upon accepting the message and executing the FMC; the aircraft immediately turned direct to AMAKR. After a short discussion with the other pilot we heading selected back to the original course towards 41N30; then rebuilt our FMC Legs Page to 41N30 FATMO AMAKR BDEGA2 arrival. We called SFO ARINC on HF to clarify our clearance; ARINC said they would ask SFO Center. No immediate response then from ARINC.At XA:20; we received a CPDLC message from SFO:/DESCEND TO REACH FL370 BY XA:25/REPORT LEVEL FL370/FOR TRAFFIC. I NEEDED YOU DIRECT AMAKRWe printed; accepted and complied with this message:At XA:26; we sent a CPDLC message back to SFO:/YOUR RTE CLEARANCE WAS AMBIGUOUS. DID NOT SAY DIRECT AMAKR. ONLY SPECIFIED ARRIVAL-BDEGA2.AMAK (could not complete our message due to character limitations for the CPDLC free text).

Callback: Reporter confirmed that they accepted the message clearance since it appeared to be only an arrival procedure clearance and did not include the words 'REVISED RTE' or 'DIRECT AMAKR'.

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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an improperly worded CPDLC reroute from ATC on an oceanic flight.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: O88.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G O88
ATC / advisory: CTAF O88
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on a training flight shooting an instrument approach into O88. We were at our MDA; making all the calls and looking for traffic; and we had to do a circle to land. We were on short final; about to touch down; and then we saw an aircraft on the right; and he was not on [the] radio. We did a go around; turned back to the left and climbed out; and warned other pilots coming in to the airport about this aircraft.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reported a NMAC in the vicinity of O88 airport.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arriving at the aircraft for the first flight of the day; I immediately noticed the logbook tagged; indicating an open write-up. I also noticed and verbalized to the First Officer (FO) we were missing one gear pin. Before powering on aircraft I called maintenance and notified him of the open write-up as well as the missing gear pin. The FO finished his walk around and let me know the gear pins were removed. About that time; maintenance was just finishing our deferral and I asked about the gear pin. He said he spoke to the ground crew and they said it came in like that and also assured us he had looked and they were removed. He said we would need to get another one as soon as the plane went back to a maintenance base for the night.We departed and upon gear retraction we received a right GEAR DISAGREE warning message. We ran the QRH; notified ATC and MX. We elected to burn off fuel to land below MLW and returned to field. Upon landing and securing the aircraft at the gate we went outside and saw that the gear pin had; in fact; been left in the right main landing gear without its red ribbon attached.


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


Synopsis: A CRJ-900 flight crew had to return after takeoff as a gear pin was not removed from the right main gear.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PAO.Tower, CA
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Other unknown
Operating under: Other 107
Flight phase: Other unknown
Airspace: Class D PAO
ATC / advisory: Tower PAO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While working Local Control; I was already working a moderate amount of traffic with high complexity when a large UAS was observed and commented on by the Ground Controller. What appeared to be a larger quad-copter of large enough size to deliver packages operating a guesstimated 1 to 1.5 NM SE Palo Alto up to an estimated 1;500 feet. I tried to brief aircraft and adjacent facilities of the UAS while others called the police department. I had been forced to work a lot of traffic on the south side because Moffett denied extensions on the North side. With the observed UAS activity on the south side the CIC tried to get North extensions to be away from the UAS activity and Moffett denied the request without citing an operational need for the airspace. This resulted in more aircraft remaining in the South pattern and increased workload in my part to issue additional advisories regarding UAS activity due to the traffic being forced to fly in closer proximity to it; in addition to the complex airspace arrangement. This is another example of why the airspace between Palo Alto and Moffett Field needs to be redesigned. Having to make aircraft fly closer to uncoordinated UAS activity did not contribute to safely and efficiently moving aircraft through the NAS. I have previously filed a report about Palo Alto needing more airspace while still being sensitive to Moffett operations. This is just one more example of why such a change is necessary.




Synopsis: ATC Controller reported an example why this particular airspace needs possible redesign and a UAS that was violating the airspace.