elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft had a history of oil consumption. The inbound flight was serviced and the Technician said it took the maximum oil allowed. He said it was at the limit on usage per flight but still within limits.  Thirteen minutes into the flight the oil level dropped 8 qts from 18.5 at takeoff to 12.5 and a few minutes later down to 12 qts. At the time I was PM (Pilot Monitoring) the Captain then transferred me to the PF (Pilot Flying) and ATC duties. The Captain contacted Dispatch and [Maintenance]. He came back from the conversation and said they agreed we should divert. After determining we would be overweight for landing; the Captain [advised ATC].  We landed at a descent rate of 200 FPM or less. The Captain and I accomplished all company procedures and checklists.  I didn't think it was necessary to file but due to [advising ATC] the Captain convinced me we should.


Second narrative: In talking to the Captain from the inbound flight we found that the aircraft had been using a significant amount of oil in the left engine. The Mechanic reported that he had put 7.5 pints of oil in the left engine it was indicating 18.5 qts. He told us that it was right at the limit on usage and we were legal to take the aircraft.At takeoff we were still at 18.5 qts. 13 minutes into the flight we were indicating 12.5 qts and at 25 minutes we were indicating 12.0 qts. I called Dispatch and we talked to [Maintenance] and I decided that we should divert.The landing was overweight at 149;000 lbs.; and the sink rate at touchdown was 200 fpm. I [advised ATC] due to the overweight landing. Upon gate arrival; I contacted Dispatch and made an entry in the [logbook] for the mechanical discrepancy; and one for the overweight landing.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported high fuel consumption after takeoff resulting in a diversion.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operating under: Part 91
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Trim System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the descent the autopilot cycled from the left to the right autopilot repeatedly; and then failed. I hand flew the aircraft and noticed that the trim for both the aileron and rudder were frozen in place. Neither pilot was able to move the trim wheels. Pitch trim was unaffected. I had full control of aileron; rudder; and elevator but only pitch trim. We landed without further incident. During taxi into the ramp; the trim controls came unstuck but still required more force than normal to move. Check all three trim controls for full movement before departure.




Synopsis: Hawker 850 Captain experiences autopilot during descent and begins hand flying. This leads to the discovery that the rudder and aileron trim tabs are frozen. The crew is able to continue and land without difficulty and the trim tabs become unstuck during taxi in.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The student I was flying [with] today when this happened was a brand new student it was their second flight. During the cruise phase; I was teaching the student on maintaining level flight as well as using the rudders and trim. While I had my Ipad out with traffic for situational awareness; I saw what looked like a ghost ping it did not tell there was traffic until the situation happened. While I was teaching I was constantly looking outside as well. While I happen to look up to my left side I saw another plane that looked like a Cessna off to my 10 to 11 o'clock. Could not tell the distance; but it was enough to see what the tail number is and at least see the silhouette of the people. Close like formation flying. When I saw the traffic I immediately took the controls from my student and make [made] a descent to avoid the traffic. After the traffic conflict; I climbed the plane back up to normal cruise altitude and continued the lesson.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported the need to take evasive action after encountering a NMAC.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Immediately preceding and upon takeoff of [my] motor-glider; a glider was being towed from north to south on Runway 14 which was in use for takeoffs and landings of gliders being towed and the motor glider that I was flying.  The wind had a westerly crosswind component of 8 to 10 being primarily from the west.As I began my takeoff roll; I saw a sailplane being towed to the north by a golf cart with one person on the westerly wing (on the active runway); opposite of the takeoff direction. The glider being towed was passing the northern threshold markers; 3 cones.  The driver of the golf cart attempted to divert to the east and take the aircraft off of the runway but the person on the wing; and standing in the active runway; did not follow the lead of the golf cart and left the left wing and fuselage on the active runway with the right wing not on the active runway.The takeoff was uphill and cockpit visibility in addition to the short time between startup of the takeoff roll left little time to react.  I used full right rudder and right aileron to move to the west as best I could but ended up passing close to the lowered wing on the active runway; approximately 10 to 12 feet to the west while being pushed back to the east by the westerly crosswind. The person who was walking the wing on the runway moved 3 to 4 feet to the east but remained standing and did not even duck.The club rules state:TAXIING All equipment shall be towed on the far East side of the field to the staging area; keeping as far to the East as possible; east of the pylons if possible. Do not drive cars on the runway when it is wet or soft; even when towing sailplanes. Move them by hand; or don't fly. And remember; THE WEST SIDE OF THE FIELD MUST BE KEPT OPEN AT ALL TIMES FOR LANDING TRAFFIC!Not in the club rules is the normal procedure that wing handlers must not be on the runway but on the adjacent taxiway off of the active runway.  It is my opinion that sailplanes should only be moved; by golf cart or other vehicle; on the adjacent taxiway and not on the runway.  Motorized aircraft capable of back-taxiing should be able to announce as is done at many airports.




Synopsis: Motor glider pilot reported a near collision during takeoff with a glider being towed in the opposite direction by a golf cart.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sierra 24
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SFB
ATC / advisory: Tower SFB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Inbound to SFB from the west and under radar vectors from Orlando ATC under the Class B but into Class C airspace of SFB for a Rwy 27L full stop approach/landing. Final controller instruction was to enter the mid field left downwind for Runway 27L at SFB from a controller issued heading of 090 degrees. At this point I was about 2-3 nm from the downwind of the runway and I made a left turn followed by an immediate mid field right turn to enter the left downwind.Next instruction was to change to tower freq of 135.25 for 27L. Tower controlled admonished me that I should have contacted the tower as I was in the pattern and caused a traffic conflict. Tower said my entry was not the correct Lake Jessup VFR arrival path. I replied I was not issued the VFR Lake Jessup arrival but on heading/vectors from ORL approach. Tower controller told me not to do that again but to contact the tower prior to entering their pattern. After that I was cleared to land on 27L. I acknowledged and landed.In the future for SFB ops I will always request the published VFR arrival from the Orlando radar controller for landing. SFB is a very busy general aviation flight school training airport. No more radar vectors but other than to join the published arrival; I will request the VFR arrival even if there is no traffic. I can visually commence the published arrival with the proper altitude and comply with the arrival.




Synopsis: Beech 24 pilot reported issues with ATC instructions for a VFR entry into SFB.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMMX.TRACON, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MMMX
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: In the descent and approach environment to MMMX we were assigned multiple clearances.  The environment was task saturated and complicated by the ATC language barrier.  After intercepting the SLM 340 radial inbound; flight level change was selected.  Approaching MAVEK; I noticed the GPS-L invalid message as expected from the company pages; and I turned my focus outside of the aircraft looking for the 3/1 and for PLAZA for the turn inbound to the runway.  I was also watching for the heavy traffic we were following.  Also at this time; the Captain noticed we had descended through the 12;000 feet crossing altitude at MAVEK and that we were still in FLC.  The Captain stopped the descent and engaged VNAV.  Captain had me notify ATC and we did not understand their response.  The rest of the approach and landing was normal.I was in the yellow; and do not recall that we said or cross checked 'LNAV; VNAV; VNAV PATH; set minimums' at the time we were cleared for the approach.  Multiple times different altitudes were set in the approach environment due to the complexity of the situation.  For some reason the ATC communications on this day approaching MMMX were more complex than usual.  I recall previous MMMX and other Mexico flying experiences where the Controllers make a point of speaking slower in English to English-speaking aircraft which helps tremendously with the accent; and this was not the case yesterday.  There was also a long pause before ATC responded to my transmissions; which made the task saturation seem enhanced; as I listened for responses.I will make it a point to add extra discussion on this topic to future approach briefings into complex environments.  Specifically the importance of verbalizing and cross check of 'LNAV; VNAV; VNAV PATH; Set min' when we hear we are 'cleared for the approach' from ATC and the need to query ATC that we are 'cleared for the approach' prior to the IAF.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported overshooting a charted altitude on arrival into MMMX. Reporter also stated they received a GPS-L invalid message.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Started our descent on the BLUZZ1 with Runway 36R programmed. Approximately 5 miles from CLARK; which has a speed restriction of 210 KIAS; the controller told us to delete altitudes; descend to 3000 feet; and plan Runway 36C. The captain immediately started programming the FMC and completed the transition right over CLARK. Since CLARK never reappeared we failed to slow from 240 to 210. We realized our error within 1-2 miles of CLARK and immediately slowed to 210 KIAS without incident.Too much focus on reprogramming FMC caused speed deviation. Wait until end of STAR to change runways.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported that after receiving a change to the runway assignment they did not comply with the published speed restrictions on the arrival. This deviation was quickly addressed and the flight continued uneventfully.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TUS.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E U90
ATC / advisory: TRACON U90
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During descent into TUS we received an EGPWS red terrain warning and took evasive action. We had been flying the ZONNA 1 RNAV into TUS and had just received vectors off the STAR; approximately 20 miles east southeast of TUS; and a descent to 10;000 feet MSL. While flying level; unaccelerated flight at 250 KIAS in IMC; we received a red EGPWS 'Pull Up; Terrain' warning. There was no preceding yellow terrain proximity cues. I initiated the climb maneuver and then saw the Captain joining me on the controls; at which point I verbally gave him control of the aircraft. We climbed approximately 5;000 feet before leveling off. We informed ATC of the reason for excursion and were informed by ATC that they have had several aircraft recently react to EGPWS events in that area. He also told us the MVA; MSA; and highest peaks in the area and informed us that we were never below the peaks on our path. We received extended vectors north of Tucson to facilitate our descent and approach; which from that point on were uneventful.Either there is an error in the database that is causing these warnings going into Tucson; or there is too little margin of error on the vectors. It needs to be determined if there is something wrong with the database and if so; it should be corrected before an injury occurs.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a terrain warning on approach to TUS that did not appear to be valid.
Date: 201501
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Aircraft] was in a hold at 3;000 feet after leaving the GPS 18 missed approach at Airport ZZZ; the pilot noticed aircraft approaching from the north east descending on an approximate heading of 220. Separation 100 feet [vertically] at first sighting and time of 10 seconds or less. Descended to 2900 feet as [other aircraft] passed over top and in front of aircraft.




Synopsis: A flight instructor in a C172 reports taking evasive action following a near-mid-air-collision while in a practice holding pattern.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: This is the second day of exposure to Methyl Ethyl Ketone; and other chemicals not stated; by controllers at ZME ARTCC. I filed a report yesterday detailing that incident.I left work yesterday; and returned to work this morning. There was still a very noticeable chemical odor in and around the control room. Large fans were still being used to supposedly remove this chemical from the control room. The back doors were closed.I and other controllers; were again feeling throat and eye irritation; albeit at a lesser level than yesterday. Some controllers requested sick leave so as not to be exposed any further to the irritant. We were told air scrubbers were coming in by [the morning]; now arriving [in the afternoon]. Doors have been opened since [the morning].With zero air monitoring samples as of this time; we are constantly being told that we are not; and have not been; exposed to dangerous levels of chemicals. Our union official was denied a seat while FAA personnel discussed the situation yesterday.Yesterday should have been ATC ZERO after finding out the type of chemical we were being exposed to; and with so many controllers complaining of health issues; while on sector. Air samplers should have been brought in to ascertain the level of contamination.




Synopsis: ZME Center Controller reported exposure to Methyl Ethyl Ketone fumes in the facility for two days.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff; the Captain (Pilot Flying) announced to me that the STAB TRIM was INOP. After aircraft control was transferred to me all applicable checklists and Flight Attendant briefs were accomplished. We were never able to regain operable STAB TRIM and had to perform a 15 FLAP LANDING. I suggested ZZZ due to its proximity to where we were and the fact it is a Company HUB. We ran the numbers on the NON-NORMAL LNDG DIST chart for the 737-800 and determined it safe to land on the suggested Runway by ATC (RWY XX at ZZZ). I landed the mishap aircraft successfully and the landing was uneventful.At the gate; Maintenance personnel were somewhat confrontational in regards to the aircraft configuration as we left all switches in the position dictated by the checklists. It was appreciated that personnel were there at gate to meet us.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported stabilizer trim became inoperative and elected to divert and make a precautionary landing.