elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
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: Flight Director
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Takeoff on runway 07L in Airport ZZZ; all indications normal; at rotation or there about we lost V speeds; Flight directors; and autothrust. No ECAM messages. Tried to reengage Flight directors and autothrust we were successful then engaged autopilot. The delay in reengaging automation caused us to exceed the 250 kts limit approximately by 20 kts; also late turning on to RNAV Departure. First officer was flying pilot; Captain monitoring. Remainder of flight was normal and uneventful.Not sure why this anomaly occurred; all checklists were completed; followed standard operating procedures. When we arrived at destination; the anomaly was written up in the logbook and was relayed to the outgoing crew.




Synopsis: An A321 air crew lost V-speeds; FDs; and autothrust on takeoff. They were able to reengage FDs; autothrust; and autopilot. The delay in reestablishing automation caused them to exceed speed limitations and to deviate from the RNAV Departure.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
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: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After passing CAMRN on the CAMRN4 arrival into JFK; we were given vectors to ILS 4L. We hadn't briefed 4L; as they were using that runway for departures; and we expected 4R. After passing CAMRN; we were given several altitude; speed; and heading vectors in a short amount of time; and were finally told 'Maintain 3;000 feet until established; cleared ILS 4L Approach.' My role at the time was PM (Pilot Monitoring); and I was heads down loading the approach; briefing the briefing strip to the PF (Pilot Flying); and answering radio calls. When we were given the clearance; I failed to recognize the altitude restriction outside of AROKE on the approach was 2;000 feet; which I believed to be 3;000 feet. I also failed to recognize we were not in VNAV; but in green FLCH. The PF set 1;500 feet; which is the glide slope intercept altitude at KRSTL; and the aircraft descended below 3;000 feet. NYC Approach advised us that we were below the assigned altitude; that there was another aircraft landing 4R; and to return to 3;000 feet immediately. I then took the controls; disconnected the autopilot; climbed back to 3;000 feet; intercepted the localizer and flew the approach with no further issues. The main cause for this event was task saturation. Had we briefed both approaches and had fewer vectors before being cleared; I would have seen that we were not ASEL-ing at 3;000 feet; and that the altitude outside of AROKE was 2;000 feet. In addition; I would have seen that VNAV was not engaged. A contributing factor to this event was the runway assignments given to the aircraft involved. We were approaching JFK from the southeast; and were given 4L; on the western side; while another aircraft was approaching JFK from the southwest; and was given 4R; on the eastern side. This event has taught me that when I'm feeling task saturated to delegate tasks to the other pilot. I could have easily given the radio communications to my FO (First Officer); allowing me to devote more attention to both motoring the flight path and setting up the approach. In the future; I will take this experience and apply it in other task-heavy situations.




Synopsis: ERJ-175 Captain reported descending below charted altitude on approach to JFK when they got a runway assignment they weren't prepared for.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Lines; Connectors; Fittings
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure climb at approximately 9000 feet MSL; intermittent hydraulic flow low annunciator began to appear in conjunction with moderate to severe turbulence. On notification to ATC; we began a turn north to return to ZZZ. Following a direct path for the extended final; when speed was reduced to configure for landing it was confirmed that there was insufficient hydraulic pressure to extend the flaps and landing gear normally.An overhead; upwind pattern entry was made with the assistance of Tower vectors and the gear was extended using the manufacturer abnormal checklist. Approach speeds were also increased to account for the no flap landing. Winds at the time were approximately 210 at 27 gust 35. A shallow approach was conducted to a smooth landing.To preclude any hydraulic system damage; it was requested to exit the runway and shutdown the engines on the taxiway. This was accomplished and the aircraft was towed to the ramp without incident.On initial Maintenance inspection by the [Company] service unit; it was discovered that a pinhole leak in the pressure line located aft belly section was the cause of the leak and loss of pressure. No visible source of abrasion or external cause for this leak was found. A failure in the metallurgy or design of the line is the only viable cause. Images of the failed line can be provided for reference.




Synopsis: CE-525 pilot reported a loss of hydraulic pressure due to a leak in a pressure line; which resulted in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Avionics; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: #1 tire was flat so another technician and I were tasked with replacing both #1 and #2 wheel assemblies. After removing the #1 wheel assembly the other technician who had removed the axle nut did not see a washer. After he inspected the removed wheel and could not find a washer; it was determined that this aircraft did not require a washer. I verified that the brake spacer was installed and we then installed the wheel assembly. The wheel nut was torqued and safety bolts installed.After a delay due to not having the 8130 tag for the new #2 wheel assembly; we proceeded to replace the #2 wheel assembly. Again the other technician did not see a washer so it was determined that a washer was not needed. This was the first time that either of us had replaced [this model of aircraft] wheel assembly. The maintenance manual mentioned installing the washer before the axle nut; but there was confusion due to the recently issued advisory notice about nuts with axle washers attached. There was also some confusion about the reference to the axle spacer and the axle washer. [5 days later] a washer was found on the old wheel assembly in the tire shop and a new washer was robbed from [another aircraft] and placed on the #1 wheel assembly. After I arrived at work I inspected the #2 wheel and notified my lead that the washer was also missing from that axle. The aircraft was taken out of service in order to install a new washer.




Synopsis: While replacing the #1 and #2 main landing gear wheel assemblies on a commercial aircraft; the technicians did not find any washer under the axle nut for either wheel assembly.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was working the R-Side of Sector X. This sector is just north of Approach. I had several Air Carrier X aircraft on frequency that I was vectoring for sequencing into the airport; three of which were Air Carrier X; Flight ABCA; Flight ACCA; and Flight ACAA. This happens almost every morning as these planes take off from [several airports]. I recommend that the Air Carrier looks at the time these aircraft take off for [the airport] and either change their departure times or change their call signs.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller voiced a safety concern regarding the similar sounding four digit call signs utilized by an Air Carrier company; frequently at the same time.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Could not extend flaps with normal system when making a visual daytime approach. Went around to run checklist. Could not get flaps to extend with alt flaps so we did a no-flap landing using the flight manual procedures. Captain made the landing with 188 knot approach. No problems stopping and normal taxi in.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported landing with flaps up after flaps would not extend for landing.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During cockpit preflight checks; oxygen pressure read 1960 psi; but rapidly decreased to 70 psi when pushing and holding the oxygen mask emergency/test knob. After releasing the knob; pressure quickly returned to 1960 psi. Test returned same result on FO (First Officer) side.  Submitted ELB report and requested maintenance.  When maintenance reported to the flight deck and I demonstrated a failed test; they said that it was ok because the pressure was returning to normal after the test. I explained our test parameters and requested that they check that the oxygen cylinder valve was fully open. Maintenance found the cylinder valve only partially opened. Once fully opened the valve and the system then checked normallyWith the valve in the partially open position insufficient oxygen was available for breathing through the mask.  The aircraft was released from maintenance in this condition; where mechanics preformed ETOPS checks and issued a [Maintenance Release]. There were at least 3 opportunities to discover this problem before the airplane flew; and an additional opportunity before I discovered the problem.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported discovering a crew oxygen issue during preflight that had been missed by multiple parties earlier.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BOS
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I landed on RWY 22L and turned right onto RWY 33R as instructed. I mistakenly turned right onto the runway edge line of 33R thinking it was the center line and hit a runway edge light. I realized this after shutting down and seeing the prop damage. In assessing this from looking at google earth; it seems wrong that RWY 22L doesn't have a gap in its edge line at the point it crosses 33R which would have made the center of RWY 33R much more obvious. This was clearly my error but one that could be much less likely if runway markings are evaluated. I hope this situation is looked at and reconsidered in how runway edge lines are painted.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported being misled by runway edge line resulting in a runway excursion and prop strike with runway light.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GTF.TRACON, MT
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Special Use GTF TRSA
ATC / advisory: TRACON GTF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Approach Controller working much busier than normal traffic with multiple practice approaches during our evening arrivals. Two aircraft were coming in from the west so I had issued Aircraft X a climb out of fly heading 120 and climb to 060. With the other traffic and communications with them including being stepped on; my scan broke down and I did not issue Aircraft X a turn as I intended to vector him to the RNAV Y 21; in time. The Local Controller/CIC noticed and said 'Hey watch that 7;000 MVA.' I immediately issued a turn to 350; when that wasn't going to work with how slow he turned (he was going 250 kts) I issued a low altitude alter with a climb to 7;000.Allow us to run simulations with busy traffic! We are a very slow facility with sporadic heavy traffic.




Synopsis: GTF TRACON Controller reported an aircraft turning slowly and entering an area of higher elevation; resulting in a MVA violation.
Date: 201508
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Disc
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While trying to remove N1 fan blade per given Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM); tool marks [were] made on [Fan] disk thus requiring unscheduled engine replacement. No exact tooling listed in given AMM to remove N1 Fan blade shim/keeper weights and using hand to work is not really possible. [Recommend] Tool [be] made or listed [in AMM] to remove N1 Fan blade shim/keeper weights and added to AMM 72-21-02 and listed in required tool section. Also; [add maintenance] NOTE: given the importance on not having damage to Fan blade disk due to tooling marks.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician recommended a specific tool be made or listed in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual for technicians to use to avoid damage to CFM-56 Engine Fan disks when removing the N1 Fan Blade Shim/Keeper weights. Inadvertent tooling damage by Technician required unscheduled engine replacement on a B737-900 aircraft.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At the completion of the test flight; the right engine was shutdown using the Engine Fire Switch per the test flight checklist during the taxi in. Upon parking the aircraft at the gate; I instructed the FO to continue with the test flight checklist Fire Switch Engine Shutdown per the checklist. As he pulled the left engine fire switch; I noted the drop in EGT and the ENGINE SHUTDOWN ECIAS message and then I turned off the beacon. While the FO continued the required checks for this task; I diverted my attention to the surrounding activities. I began talking to the maintenance personnel (at the nose) on the intercom to release parking brake as the stairs were brought up; asked our onboard maintenance technician to open the cockpit door; and then conducted the normal overhead shutdown flow. I do not recall switching off the engine fuel switches nor do I recall if they were on or off during my shutdown flow. If the checklist was followed properly; both the fuel switches and the fire switches should have been off/in. Before vacating the seat; a normal shutdown checklist was completed and I began making aircraft logbook entries. As normal; several maintenance folks entered the cockpit for a debrief. One of the technicians that was on the ground; stated that the left engine shutdown sounded abnormal. At that time we scanned the engine instruments and noted that the left engine EGT had latched an overtemp. Myself; the FO and the onboard technician stated that the shutdown appeared normal in the cockpit. At that time; I entered the overtemp into the aircraft logbook.Unknown [cause]. Speculation is that the FO may have reset the fire switch before turning off the engine fuel switch. If this happened as a result of the FO resetting the fire switch prematurely; the event can be easily prevented by following the approved checklist.




Synopsis: During taxi in; after the completion of a test flight; the right engine is shut down using the fire switch. At the gate the First Officer is instructed to shut down the left engine using its fire switch; which was accomplished. A Maintenance Technician that was on the ground during the shutdown stated that the shutdown sounded abnormal. It was then noted that the left engine EGT had latched an overtemp.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On our flight to ZZZ Flight Attendant B warmed up a leftover sandwich from first class in the back oven and the oven proceeded to smoke. He then notified the Captain who said if there's no fire and its smoke that's not visible leave it closed and we'll have Maintenance come on board when we land. I never personally saw the inside of the oven or smoke.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported smoke coming from an oven that the Captain deemed not visible.