elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SA 365 Dauphin 2
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: EC135
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed the Medical Center to the northwest. Approximately one minute into the flight while climbing to 2;000 MSL; I got a TCAS alert of traffic at 9 o'clock less than a mile. The Flight Medic who was setting in the co-pilot seat (left seat) saw a helicopter converging with us and announced 'Dive'. I immediately lowered the collective. Due to the airframe and position of the other aircraft; I could not see the traffic. Once the other helicopter crossed over top of us; I saw what appeared to be an EC135 through the overhead window. They crossed over the top of us by approximately 300 FT. Due to heavy radio traffic with ATC; I was not in contact with Approach yet for traffic advisories.I was monitoring CTAF for the Medical Center for approximately five minutes prior to takeoff. I did not hear the other aircraft although I did hear at least two other aircraft in the immediate area. I made a radio call announcing my departure from the Medical Center westbound on CTAF.




Synopsis: An SA365 departing a medical center and suffered an NMAC with an inbound EC135. Failure to employ the local CTAF frequency may have been a factor.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: As we were boarding; a FAA ramp inspector told me he thought the brake wear pin indicators were indicating low on the left inboard side. I called [Company Maintenance] and they ran the brake wear indicator test. The rear pin emerged when pressure was applied to the system but the front pin remained slightly recessed. The FAA ramp inspector and the lead mechanic were in disagreement over if both pins had to emerge under pressure or just one. I told them to try to figure it out as passengers had now been on board for over an hour. After more discussion with the FAA inspector the lead mechanic returned saying one pin emerging was airworthy and returned our logbook. We pilots are specifically told not to look at the gear pins so I took my lead mechanic's word and we attempted to leave. After a subsequent ATC flow delay it was 2 hours and 5 minutes with passengers on board from boarding start to takeoff. Apparently some verbiage in the maintenance manuals needs to be clarified.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that a Maintenance Technician and an FAA inspector were not in agreement if a brake was within wear limits.
Date: 202107
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU Pneumatic System & Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Fumes were initially observed by the #4 flight attendant while standing with myself in the forward galley.  Once I observed the odor; I went to the Captain and told him about the smell.  He proceeded to turn off the APU; and the smell of the odor dissipated.  He restarted the APU; and the odor returned.  He decided to try it once again by shutting it down and after a few minutes restarting it; and the odor was gone and again returned upon restarting.  The Captain called Maintenance and it was later decided that we would have to remove passengers and crew from the plane and take that particular aircraft out of service and get another plane for the flight.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant reported a fumes event during boarding. The aircraft was removed from service after Maintenance was called.
Date: 201807
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exhaust Gas Temperature Indicat
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were climbing from FL370 to FL390 and the #2 engine EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) rose into the amber. We descended back to FL350 and pulled the thrust levers back to diagnose the situation. I was PF (Pilot Flying) and the Captain was PM (Pilot Monitoring). We looked for an EGT Checklist (there isn't one) and eventually found and accomplished the Engine Surge checklist in the QRH. The EGT kept rising towards amber so we kept reducing power on the right engine. We ended up stabilizing at around .73 mach at FL350. There was enough of a throttle split that I was having to apply left rudder to keep the aircraft straight.We consulted [Maintenance] and Dispatch. [Maintenance] couldn't give us a definitive answer (or much information at all it seemed); however our Dispatcher was quite helpful with communicating. Any time we advanced the right thrust lever above around 79% N1; the EGT would start rising rapidly. We decided with dispatch that we had a degraded engine and were required by the [Manual] to divert to the nearest suitable field. We [advised ATC]; and diverted to ZZZ. The captain ran all the necessary checklists; we briefed the approach; and landed safely.In the descent the right engine indications normalized around 10;000 feet.Dispatch and Operations both did a great job.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported high EGT indication due to engine degradation.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A-1 Husky
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft is equipped with amphibious floats and was in the water for 4-5 weeks. Waiting for good flying weather. When the weather improved; I flew for approximately 1-1/2 hrs. After touching down after an uneventful flight exited the runway on a high speed taxiway and applied brakes with absolutely no effect. There was a hangar close to the end of the taxiway and without directional control; my aircraft contacted the structure. Fortunately; only the toe bumper of the left float made any contact. On inspection; the cement bond of the outside portion of the bumper was separated (my Mechanic inspected the aircraft and float and recemented the bumper). There was some damage to the wall of the hangar which is being repaired. An Agent from the field arrived to take a report and subsequently notified FAA. (I have had the interview and presentation of records). The lesson learned was to test breaking efficiency especially when the brakes have been submerged. We pilots must never assume all systems will work every time and have an alternative plan for safe; controlled aircraft operation. The aircraft had slowed sufficiently; possibly moving 1-3 MPH at impact with the hangar. I have flown straight float equipped aircraft since 1975 and these amphibious floats and new aircraft to me sure ended up 'blind siding' me with the wet brakes. I was able to taxi to my tie down and have flown since with no problem. This aircraft is new to me since May of this year.




Synopsis: After keeping his amphibious float equipped Husky in the water for four to five weeks the aircraft is flown to an airport where it is discovered after landing that the brakes do not work. Minor damage to the aircraft results.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon departure from XYR at ZZZ; I received a false terrain alert from the TAWS system.  That caused to delay the activation of the 'nav' mode on my flight director which delayed my turn to the ZZZZZ intersection.  ATC gave me an expedited turn to a heading of 350 to get me headed toward ZZZZZ.  Based on what I saw on my TCAS; I don't believe there was a loss of separation.




Synopsis: Lear 60 Captain reported deviating off course after departure due to receiving a false TAWS warning for terrain. ATC gave the pilot a new heading and the flight continued on the correct routing.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: RPM/N1/N2/Etc Indication
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon reaching cruise altitude; I noticed the engine instrument readings for the right engine went blank; EGT; N1; N2 appeared normal. Contacted Maintenance Control and ATC and diverted to the nearest suitable airport.




Synopsis: MD80 First Officer notes loss of engine indications for the right engine after reaching cruise altitude. After consulting with Maintenance Control the flight diverts to a suitable airport.
Date: 201703
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU Pneumatic System & Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During our pre-flight in the flight planning room we noticed that our OFP (Operational Flight Plan) had two MEL items that were deferred on our aircraft.  The APU bleed valve was inoperable along with the right FAMV (Fan Air Modulation Valve) valve. After consulting with my crew and reviewing the [manual] we decided that the APU was deemed highly desirable to be in operable condition to maintain the proper level of safety for our operation. We were filed to fly on a sub polar route; not very desirable with the APU bleed being inoperable. I coordinated with Dispatch and voiced our concerns and indicated that we would be refusing the aircraft in its current condition. I did not speak to [maintenance control] at this time but was planning to speak to line maintenance first at the aircraft. We could not board the aircraft at the gate as line maintenance was going to push back for an engine run-up for an IDG (Integrated Drive Generator) problem they were working on that we found out about later. While in the gate area our chief pilot approached us and wanted to know about the situation. He was cordial but asked me our reasoning for the refusal. He asked if I had coordinated with Dispatch and [maintenance control] and reminded me that I would have to file an [Operations Report] explaining why we felt it was unsafe to accept this aircraft. Back in the flight planning room I initiated contact with Dispatch and [maintenance] and relayed our concerns again. I was told that maintenance was working on the APU MEL item. A short time later I received a call from my dispatcher informing me that the APU bleed valve issue had been fixed and if we would accept the aircraft. After consulting with my flying partners we felt that we could accept this aircraft for our flight. We all felt subtle pressure to operate this flight with these systems deferred.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported pressure to accept an aircraft with an inoperative APU that he had refused for an ETOPS flight.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E S46
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While briefing HAWKZ arrival; I overlooked the 280 KTS speed restriction as I haven't flown it in a while or at night. With the iPad I cannot pick up the note in the corner as I need to expand the print to read it in low light or the iPad is too bright for night ops and the note was hidden. In short; I missed it and forgot it was there. We were correcting when the Controller called us asking for our speed and were slowing from 290 to 280 KTS. The cost index was 99 and programmed for a 320 descent and we caught it around 290 just before the Controller noticed our closure on preceding aircraft. Being more concerned with weather at SEA and overlooking note on arrival route.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports missing the 280 KT speed restriction on the HAWKZ RNAV arrival to SEA. The deviation is detected by the crew and correction begun at the the same time ATC takes note. The iPad chart had been expanded for visibility and the note was off the screen.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: R (Right) engine oil leak. Shut down engine per QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) procedure. [Notified ATC] and diverted to ZZZZ.


Second narrative: When the new checklist and flow guide came out I was confused and concerned as to why certain items were removed from the checklist and only appear in the flow guide. This essentially makes items like altimeters; lights; sterile chimes and the after landing checklist memory items. This is confusing because we just changed from memory items for critical action items to a quick reference card because research shows we perform better when we read checklists. It's concerning because altimeters; lights; sterile chimes; and after landing checklists are critical. It's not a good thing if you miss any of those items. I intended to write an ASAP (Aviation Safety Action Program) and complain about the new procedures but I figured it was a waste of time. 'Who's going to listen to me' I thought. Well on [date removed] I had to shut an engine down over the North Atlantic for low oil pressure. We executed a divert to ZZZZ and ran all the necessary emergency and single engine checklists and all the normal 'checklist' items. This was a very busy and intense hour and a half. I remembered the sterile chime at 9;000 feet (much later than I had intended) and never turned on the landing lights. Those items would've been caught if they were on the checklist. Checklist items deleted from checklist on [month] Changes. Redesign the checklist to include all items that are important and should not be missed. Altimeters; lights; sterile chime and speed brakes flaps and lights on the after landing checklist.


Synopsis: 767-300 Flight Crew performed in flight engine shutdown and diversion due to low oil pressure.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The Port Authority of NY and NJ has just opened the new Goethals Bridge connecting Staten Island and New Jersey approximately three miles south of Newark Airport. The new bridge has four main towers; each with strobing white lights. The other night flying into Newark; the lights on top of the towers were sequenced together. Add a small east wind (right crab); and these could easily be mistaken for REILs. Reference the incident on the LOC 31 at LGA where [a] crew mistook the red Marriott Hotel sign for the VASI. The danger is that a crew could pick up the bridge lights coming out of an overcast and head for the bridge (mistaking the lights for REILs). The fix appears to be simple: Change the lights to random flashers instead of sequenced flashers; and post a warning in the 10-7 page.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported that a new bridge near EWR has sequencing white strobe lights that could be mistaken for Runway End Identifier Lights.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After pushback and engine start (both engines stabilized) and after both pilots accomplished their respective after start flows; I called 'Flaps 2 taxi.'  As the airplane began to move; maybe 15 feet straight ahead; the number 2 engine failed.  Passengers noticed a 'large puff of blue smoke.'  I stopped and assessed the situation; ATC and surrounding aircraft saw no flames or smoke.  I asked my First Officer to request a return to the gate. While he was doing that I made a public address to the passengers of the situation and we returned to the gate.  Maintenance Foreman thought possibly a FADEC or maybe even a severed fuel line.  I made no attempt to restart the number 2 engine with this the possibility of 'raw fuel' in the tailpipe area or burner as it could ignite a tailpipe fire or worse.




Synopsis: A321 Captain experiences a number two engine failure (flame out) as he is beginning his taxi away from the gate.  Aircraft is returned to the gate for maintenance