elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Hydraulics
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
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
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was in the PIC (Pilot In Command) (right) seat conducting training for a CFI student in the left seat. We were performing simulated hydraulics failures in the traffic pattern at ZZZ airport. We were using the hydraulics isolate switch on the right seat collective to shut off the hydraulics on downwind and performing simulated run on landings at hover height over the runway. While climbing away from the runway I told the left seat pilot I was ready for the hydraulics to be turned back on. I felt him flip the switch on my collective back up and heard the normal warning horn come on briefly. Normal control forces returned; however; the HYDR light remained on. We turned crosswind and decided to recycle the switch again to see if the light would turn off. It did not. Instead of turning downwind at ZZZ we turned back towards our home base of ZZZ1. We discussed if there was anything we were missing and how we could determine if it was just the light or if it was an actual hydraulics failure and we were on the backup accumulators which only offered a limited amount of time before they would deplete. The other pilot and I determined that there was no way to determine if we still had the main hydraulics system functioning normally so we has to assume they were off-line. The emergency procedure is to level the aircraft and fly between 40-60 kts. ; then use the collective HYDR cut off switch and shut down the system before the accumulators start to deplete before performing a run on landing. I [advised ATC] with ZZZ1 and told them I would need Runway XX/XY for a run-on landing. The run on landing was performed normally. Once on the ground I reengaged the hydraulics system and manipulated the controls long enough to determine that we were not working off the limited supply of the back up accumulators. We hover taxied over the taxiways back to our ramp. After landing our Maintenance staff found the switch for the hydraulics warning light needed to be replaced. After replacement of the switch the system worked properly. I contacted ZZZ1 Tower and Airport Rescue and Fire asking if they required any reports from us and both indicated that the phone call was sufficient.




Synopsis: Eurocopter pilot reported failure of hydraulic switch resulted in return to home airport.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X departed Boeing field; was radar identified and climbed to 4;000 feet. I had other aircraft on frequency and was getting them climbed and on course as well. I had many strips in front of me and I think I read the wrong one because there was no reason not to climb Aircraft X higher. I heard a ring throughout the room so I looked and it was Renton Tower calling for their morning opening checklist. Aircraft X requested higher while I was on the line and I never heard the aircraft over the loudspeaker at my position so he remained at 4;000 FT MSL heading eastbound towards a higher MVA (I only know this because I listened to a playback). As Aircraft X continued eastbound he again requested higher; when I was off the line; so I climbed him but failed to recognize he was in a 5;000 FT MVA at 4;000 FT MSL. There was no low altitude alert to remind me something bad was happening or about to happen. I was later approached by another controller and told you might want to look at the replay of my departure session because there was an issue with an aircraft that departed Boeing Field. I told them I knew it and I was going to review it. I didn't hear the aircraft requesting higher and I didn't see what was transpiring. My recommendation is to pay closer attention to the strips; do a thorough once over of the equipment to ensure everything is set properly; speakers are turned up; that way nothing gets missed.




Synopsis: S46 Departure Controller reports he violated MVA with aircraft due to doing other duties.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Aircraft component: Integrated Audio System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While transiting through Cleveland Center's airspace; we received an ACARS message from Dispatch stating that ATC thought we had a stuck MIC. The Captain deselected his Push-To-Talk yoke switch from the hot MIC ICS position to get a radio check with ATC. As soon as he did that; ATC reported back loud and clear and that we were the only aircraft they had been unable to check with yet. So; that means we were probably the ones with the hot MIC. There were no other indications of a hot MIC the rest of the flight and we could not duplicate it again no matter how many times the Captain cycled the PTT switch. It is unknown as to how long we had the hot MIC and how much our situation and conversation impacted other ATC communications. This is the third time that I have been a crew member on an aircraft with a stuck MIC. In all of these situations; we were trying to use the PTT yoke switch to improve crew coordination via ICS hot MIC. However; in all of these situations; we; as the flying crew members have had no indication that our switches were stuck somehow activating both ICS and VHF simultaneously. The PTT yoke switch seems to be well intentioned; but poorly engineered. Accelerating the program to replace the communication panels with the hot MIC selector on the center pedestal would be worthwhile in preventing future incidents such as this one. Also; it would be helpful to have either a light on the VHF radio panel or a visual annunciation on the PFD to show that a transmission is taking place.  All of these require money; so in the interim; disabling the PTT hot MIC function might be necessary as well.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reports receiving an ACARS message that an aircraft on the current ATC frequency has a stuck mic. A radio check by the Captain using his PTT switch clears the problem.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just before leveling at cruise altitude the Right Engine failed. It rolled back slowly over about 10 seconds. Memory items were followed and ATC contacted. We diverted and landed single engine at the nearest suitable airport. I suspect the right engine was fuel starved. Upon engine start; prior to departure; the FUEL 2 LOW PRESS annunciator remained illuminated. The PM and I reviewed the checklists; and then consulted the MEL. The MEL also referred us to the AFM. We reviewed the AFM together. I called Maintenance; and they walked me through the MEL procedure and the associated paperwork. Maintenance indicated everything was in order; I emailed pictures of the maintenance log to Maintenance Control and the passengers were informed of the reason for the delay. The AFM checklist was reviewed and we departed with no other abnormalities until the flameout.The PNF and I reviewed the procedure together and with Maintenance again after landing. I have operated previously with the same MEL. We don't see anything we missed.


Second narrative: We started engines and noticed No. 2 Fuel Pressure light remained illuminated. We double checked switches/circuit breakers and observed them in their normal positions. We deduced that our No. 2 boost pump was inoperative. The Captain called Maintenance and they confirmed this. In conferring with Maintenance the boost pump was written up; The AFM and MEL limitations were observed and an Inop sticker put in place. We then departed and; upon reaching FL410; the right engine began to roll back. Memory items were executed by the captain and the engine out checklist called for. AFM and MEL procedures were followed and pre and post- indecent between crew members; we could not identify anything that we could have done differently that would have prevented this incident.


Synopsis: After completing the appropriate MEL tasks to depart with an inoperative No 2 fuel boost pump inoperative the flight crew of a BAE-125 suffered a flame out at FL410 and diverted to the nearest suitable airport for maintenance.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Takeoff roll; at 80 KTS both airspeed indicators agreed. On Captain's side at 120 KTS; IAS comparator alert came on. Captain's airspeed had stagnated. [When] cross referenced First Officer's airspeed indicator which was increasing normally passing 141 KTS. Captain rejected the takeoff. We executed a 180 on the runway and taxied back to our original gate. Subsequently; brake overheats and eventually at least one fuse plug blew.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reports rejecting a takeoff above 140 knots when the Captain's airspeed indicator fails. Brake overheats occur and eventually at least one fuse plug blew after returning to the gate..
Date: 201907
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Other Ops Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had just spoken with an [Operations Control] employee at ZZZ. The employee had advised that s/he had felt uncomfortable when having to work the overnight hours and provide ramp control instructions. The employee confirmed that s/he had not received Ramp Controller [training].  I believe having the [Operations Control] employees provide ramp control instructions while simultaneously meeting the needs of their position (Zone Supervisor/Gate Manager) presents a safety risk.


Second narrative: Yesterday during an instructor-led training session; one of the [Operations Control] employees who has been provided with responsibility of issuing control instructions at ZZZ during the overnight hours indicated that he was unfamiliar with the taxiways.	 When speaking with him; he advised that the traffic; particularly at Concourse A; has been picking up recently. My feedback from speaking with some of the [Operations Control] employees is that they would rather not provide control instructions while simultaneously working their regular positions. Additionally; the [Operations Control] employee indicated that often times s/he would listen to the FAA control inform flight crews that ramp control is closed during these late hours.


Synopsis: Dispatcher reported that Airport Operations employee stated that they did not have required training to perform assigned duties.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Fume event on Flight ABC.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a fume event.
Date: 202005
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At holding for Runway 06R I received takeoff clearance and acknowledged same. Then encountered a buzzing sound in radio and broadcast that I was delaying departure. A few seconds later problem was rectified and I said I was resuming Takeoff. During takeoff roll the aircraft was much more difficult to control than I anticipated (tailwheel configuration of which I have approximately 3;000 hours). I decided to reject the takeoff and the aircraft departed the Runway to the right. At that point I regained control and taxied back to the holding point. Tower called and ordered me to return to the ramp and phone them. At this point I was told my clearance for takeoff had been canceled when I stated I was delaying departure. I did not hear that cancelation so obviously did not acknowledge it. At the line up on the Runway and beginning of acceleration I looked at the Tower as I have been trained to do and saw no signals.When making the call to ATC by phone the Tower Controller was very rude and aggressive in demeanor and would not listen to me and would cut me off when trying to speak. I asked for their supervisor's name and it was refused.A few minutes later I placed a call to the same person and asked why no transmission or red light signal was given to stop my takeoff. The answer was they were to busy. No other aircraft was on the Runway or on approach at the time. Again the demeanor of the controller was very rude and abrupt.


Second narrative: Report contained no additional information.


Synopsis: GA pilot experienced a runway excursion while performing a rejected takeoff. Pilot reported confusion between the pilot and Tower Controller about whether the take-off clearance had been canceled.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DPA.Tower, IL
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D DPA
ATC / advisory: Tower DPA
Second aircraft: Falcon 7X
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A C560XL was conducting a visual approach to Runway 2L. A Falcon 7X aircraft was also conducting a visual approach to Runway 2L in front of the C560XL. The data block for the C560XL indicated 'VS'; which meant that the aircraft had the Falcon it was following in sight and was maintaining visual separation. When the C560XL called the Tower on 120.9; I verified that the pilot had the Falcon in sight; which the pilot confirmed; then cleared him to land on Runway 2L #2. Upon crossing the numbers for Runway 2L; the pilot of the C560XL said that they were going around. I instructed the aircraft to enter left traffic for 2L and cleared him to land. The aircraft landed on 2L safely. After landing; when I asked the pilot the reason for the go-around; the pilot stated that it was wake turbulence behind the Falcon. It is my understanding that when an IFR aircraft accepts a visual approach and visual separation from another IFR aircraft; and that aircraft requires a wake turbulence advisory; that the advisory is given by the Approach Controller; according to FAA Order 7110.65; 2-1-20 a2. Therefore I felt it was redundant to issue the wake turbulence advisory to the C560XL again.In the future I will give wake turbulence advisories to aircraft that require them; regardless of whether or not the advisory may have been given by a previous controller. I should not have assumed that the advisory had already been given; and it would not have caused any harm other than frequency congestion to reissue the advisory to the Citation.




Synopsis: DPA Local Controller stated a C560XL reported encountering wake turbulence on approach in trail of a Falcon 7X.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The clearance on takeoff was 'Cleared for takeoff; fly heading 100 and climb to 4;000 feet. When handed off to Departure Control; I checked in and reported; erroneously; that we were 'climbing via the ZZZZZ 3 RNAV except maintain 4;000 feet.  The Captain/Pilot Flying did not actually deviate from the clearance; I just reported it wrong. ATC then asked for clarification; if we were flying the SID. I replied 'correction; we are on a 100 heading; climb to 4;000 feet. We were then given an additional turn to 070 heading; as well as an additional climb to 16;000 feet.This was my first leg of OE after nearly eight months without flying due to the COVID schedule reductions.


Second narrative: Doing an OE with Requalification First Officer. First leg of trip. Everything was SOP up until the point of check-in with ZZZ Departure. I was the PF and the OE pilot was the PM. Original clearance was the ZZZZZ1; we had a CDR on taxi out which changed us to the ZZZZZ 3. Tower assigned a 100 Heading and to maintain 4;000 feet. We set 100 HDG and deselected LNAV. I flew the 100 HDG and maintained four thousand. Upon check-in with departure; the PM stated altitude and we were climbing via the ZZZZZ 3. ATC then cleared us to 6;000 feet; which we set per SOP. We deleted the 5;000 below restriction and climbed to six in VNAV. Shortly after; ATC quired if we were on the ZZZZZ as we were almost on a direct line to ZZZZZ4 and to climb and maintain 16;000 feet. The FO read back we were on a heading of 100; not the ZZZZZ.ATC stated to turn left to 070. I had FO verify we were still cleared to 16;000. We continued climb on a 070 HDG until cleared to ZZZZZ5 on course.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported the First Officer (PM) read back the wrong clearance to ATC during departure causing confusion. The First Officer cited lack of flying contributed to the event.
Date: 202008
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The cleaning employee asked if he could disinfect spray the inside of the aircraft; I said no not yet; we're right in the middle of maintenance on the aircraft. I said; 'give us 5 minutes please;' he said okay. Next thing I know he's spraying the entire aircraft with the cockpit door open; Technician Y in the electronics and equipment compartment and no announcement or even a 'heads up' he was going to spray. I was still in the cockpit working on a pack issue and saw him coming up the aisle spraying. He left the aircraft shortly after and approximately 10 minutes later in the planning office; I realized I had become congested and started coughing. We need some safety measures in place and adequate 'air out' time for the fuselage.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported that a cleaning employee began spraying disinfectant inside the aircraft while the Technician was still inside performing work. The Technician experienced adverse physiological reaction as a result.