elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout received level 1 CABIN CLIMB alert followed by level 3 CABIN ALTITUDE alert. We stopped our climb at 12;000 feet then coordinated with ATC for descent to 10;000 feet. Completed checklist; consulted [company]; decided to continue to ZZZ1. Passing through FL320 on subsequent climb we received a level 3 CABIN ALTITUDE alert again. We [advised ATC] and initiated emergency descent to 10;000 feet; then completed checklist again. We consulted with [the company] and decided to divert back to ZZZ. Normal approach and landing in to ZZZ with no further issues.Equipment failure of pressurization system; yet to be determined.


Second narrative: During climb out we got a Cabin rate indication followed by Cabin Altitude warning passing approximately 12;000 feet. We descended to 10;000 feet to accomplish QRH procedures. Cabin pressurization control returned to normal. After consulting with [company maintenance]; we proceeded enroute to ZZZ1. During climb through approximately 32;000 feet the same alerts reoccurred and [we advised ATC]; and emergency descent to 10;000 was accomplished. QRH procedures were again accomplished followed by return to ZZZ.  Cabin pressure controller malfunction. (Probable cause at this writing).


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported an air turn back after the cabin pressurization failed twice.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff was unable to raise landing gear up. Shortly after that [we] got a Green Hydraulic pump low pressure ECAM message; both Number 1 and Number 2 Green Engine Hydraulic pumps had faulted with the resulting Green system hydraulic low pressure. We followed ECAM and QRH procedures and contacted Dispatch on the SAT phone to confer with Maintenance Control. As we could not restore the Green Hydraulic system; we informed Dispatch that we would hold to burn off fuel to landing weight. On landing; Green Hydraulic system restored itself to normal and we taxied to gate. Maintenance had worked on the Green system before departure and possibly had not bleed the system before return to service; according to them.




Synopsis: A330 Captain experiences failure of the landing gear to retract after takeoff followed quickly by failure of the Green hydraulic system. Maintenance can offer no solution and the flight returns after burning down to landing weight. Upon touchdown the Green hydraulic system restored itself to normal. Maintenance had been performed on the Green system prior to departure.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Aircraft component: GPWS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flying VFR visibility unrestricted conducting LOC FMS approach to EGE. Inside CANDU fully configured for landing; on LOC and on VNAV PATH; autopilot ON aircraft pitched over prior to BARZA but remained on VNAV PATH with autopilot on and autothrottles on. Experienced a quartering right tailwind resulting in a higher than normal ground speed. Approaching BARZA airspeed picked up to ref plus 15 with throttles at idle. [I] advised student to use speed brakes. At that time GPWS warning 'Terrain' went off shortly followed by 'Pull Up'. We were visual with the terrain and ON VNAV PATH and VERTICAL TRACK ERROR 0 (PROG page 2); so we continued on path. BARZA is not in the LEGS page so I don't know what altitude I crossed BARZA. [We] continued to an uneventful landing.




Synopsis: A B757 Check Airman reported a GPWS warning approaching BARZA on the FMS LOC approach to EGE in VMC. A quartering tailwind had been encountered resulting in increased airspeed to stay on the vertical path. With the terrain and airport in sight the approach was continued to landing.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Turbulence
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft set up with ATIS of reported winds of 000/00 (calm). Entered and briefed into the FMS (A-321). Given close turn to final; had to turn off autopilot and then auto throttles as the speed decades to ref minus ten knots. Following 2.5 traffic ahead and asked to immediately slow. I dirtied up; but now tower reported winds from 290 to 310 degrees; 25 gusting to 31 knots. [These winds are common in this area] and they can be quite unstable with the hillside to the north of the airport. While descending through 1000 feet; I hit a wind gust or possible windshear that rolled the aircraft 40 degrees right. With the aircraft being in an unstable and awkward position; I elected to complete a 'soft go-around'. The first officer reported possible windshear/wake turbulence on the go. Returned back to the downwind for uneventful landing. 7.6 fuel in the tanks after landing. Suggest more experience in the aircraft type.


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


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported encountering severe weather; including possible windshear; while on final approach.
Date: 201411
Location: SPIM.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower SPIM
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approximately 3 miles outside final approach fix; aircraft descending in FLCH to 2000 MSL; passing 3300-3200 MSL aircraft had LOC engaged and captured; aircraft started a 10-15 degree bank right away from the LOC course. Both pilots verbalized the deviation and as the PFD showed a LOC flag I disconnected the autopilot and transitioned to the standby ADIs which displayed normal course path displays and considered a missed approach nearing 2100 MSL when the First Officer confirmed visual sighting of the runway. I confirmed visual with standby ADI guidance; continued the approach manually meeting the 1000 and 500 foot stabilized approach criteria to an uneventful landing. No airport surface traffic was present to affect the LOC signal and arrival congestion prevented further discussion with the tower. I questioned the purser and he stated many people were on their cellphones even after making multiple announcements. This incident was identical to one I had years ago in a 737 on a simultaneous ILS landing IAH Runway 26L. Can't prove cellphones do this of course; and can't prove they do not. Heads Up Warning.


Second narrative: On final apch to 15 (ILS Z) with the autopilot on; descending thru the bottom of the overcast layer; the acft started drifting right of course and was no longer following the glide path (drifting high). The Captain (CA) promptly took over hand-flying the acft below the wx to a visual apch and uneventful landing. Although a little high and right; the CA's prompt; correct actions saved a go-around in proximity to significant terrain; in the dead of night; and with both of us tired. Post-flight query of the F/As evidenced that numerous pax were using their cell-phones just prior to landing (possible causal effect?)Prior to the dramatic; un-alerted; insidious error of the autopilot; it had worked flawlessly leading us to question if frequency meaconing could be the cause of its failure (it simply no longer received the ILS data)? Not sure of cause.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported deviating from ILS course and altitude on approach to SPIM because of an autopilot error; possibly caused by passenger cell phone use.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We operated Aircraft X from ZZZ to [destination.] After our initial cockpit set up my First Officer went down to do the walk around. After he came up he told me that 'they are de-icing our wings and tail.' No communication had been established between us and the deicing team. We had no opportunity to configure for deicing. De-icing had commenced without our knowledge. I contacted de-icing control and requested to talk to a rep. A few minutes later I was talking to the team leader of the crew de-icing our jet. He said that they are now trained to go ahead and start the deicing procedure (at the gate) as long as ground power is plugged in and gate air is connected.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported communication breakdown between flight crew and deicing crew.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working sector 50-59/84 combined is a common event in the area. Aircraft X called airborne looking to pick up his IFR [clearance] to [destination]. I issued his clearance and gave him a squawk code. When I initially sent the initial DM [Departure Message] message I noticed that it had not gone through so I did it a second time with success. At this time it was slightly busier than normal at the sector and I did not put up a track as I was waiting for the computer to auto track the aircraft.I continued to work and Aircraft X asked on frequency if he should be talking to [destination] approach. At this time I noticed that he was 15 NM inside of [destination approach's] airspace and was squawking the wrong code. I called for Departure on the VSCS [Voice Switch and Control System] and informed them that [transponder ZZZZ] code inside their airspace was indeed Aircraft X level at 9;000 and that I had not radar identified him yet. They called Radar Contact and I switched Aircraft X to their frequency.I should have been viligent in reminding myself that I had an aircraft that had departed. I should have thrown up a track to help remind me so that when it didn't auto tag I would have noticed and been able to catch the wrong squawk code.




Synopsis: ZKC Controller reported of an aircraft departing; but not tagging up. Aircraft was never identified and minutes later the pilot asked if he should be on another frequency. Aircraft was 15 miles into someone else's airspace. Controller called adjacent airspace Controller and made handoff and told receiving Controller the plane was never identified.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34-200T Turbo Seneca II
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on an ATP training flight with a student; and after completing maneuvers; we came back for some pattern work.  The gear was exercised twice during the flight maneuvers; once for an approach to landing stall; and then again for a simulated emergency descent.  While on our initial visual approach; the student put the gear down; the gear warning light came on and then all three gears down lights came on and then the gear warning light went out.  Student verified that the nose wheel was down in the mirror.  Student landed the aircraft with about 5 knots of extra airspeed and only 10 degrees of flaps due to a 10 knot gust factor.  After a normal landing and initial deceleration; the student raised the flaps and then applied takeoff power.  Approaching 70 knots of airspeed (rotation speed); the nose gear abruptly collapsed.  The aircraft slid to a stop on the runway.  After bring mixtures to idle/cut off; throttles to idle and turning off the master switch; the student and I egressed the aircraft.




Synopsis: PA-34 instructor with ATP student in the left seat reports a nose gear collapse during a touch and go resulting damage to the aircraft.
Date: 202101
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to departure; Operations Agent showed me paperwork showing oxygen cylinder onboard as HAZMAT and showed it denoted on the Release that it was carried in Bin A. I ask her if I need to sign said paperwork and she said no; after looking over the document there was no place for PIC (Pilot in Command) signature. The Operations Agent said all she needed was to show me that it was onboard and she keeps the paperwork. We fly to ZZZ1 uneventfully; and finish our trip.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported not receiving flight crew copy of Hazmat documents from Operations Agent delineating the oxygen cylinders on board.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground AUS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: After pushing from gate in AUS; Ground Control issued taxi instructions to Runway 17R via C2 to C. Our Jepps Airport Info page does not depict a C2 Taxiway. We referenced the airport information page which shows Taxiway C2 near the intersection of the ramp and G1. We turned left toward C2 and then asked Ground Control if they wanted us to use G1 from C2; because our page also did not show C2 leading to C. The Ground Controller asked why we had turned toward the east. We were then instructed to turn back to the west on the ramp and follow Aircraft Y. We informed Ground Control that our taxi diagram does not show a Taxiway C2. We were informed that this has been reported previously by other crews. While following Aircraft Y; we were able to locate the Taxiway C2 yellow line painted on the ground. There is also a Taxiway C1 painted on the ground that is not depicted on our Jepps page.   We should have requested additional instruction from Ground Control prior to turning out from the gate. The Jepps page should be updated to show taxi lanes C1 and C2.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported difficulty executing a taxi clearance at AUS airport resulting in a taxiway incursion.  The crew cited charting deficiencies as contributing.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The C172 made initial contact 1/2 mile west of the airport at 1;200 FT. Contact is supposed to be made prior to entering Class D airspace. Pilot's response to informing him of such was that 'there were clouds'. Only about 60% of what the pilot says could be understood. I was already working one of his buddies from the same flight school; who called me saying he didn't see the airport. When questioned how he was navigating to the airport; he replied he did not see the airport. I reworded the question to which he replied he had followed a Highway Interstate which at its closest is 4 1/2 miles from the airport. I had issued a suggested heading to assist him in visually acquiring the airport. After initial contact with the C172; I had to immediately call traffic because he was headed right at the other aircraft. He claimed he saw the traffic. I then issued traffic to the aircraft and got the response that he did not see the traffic because he was in a cloud. I managed to get them both on the ground alive and only had to coax one of them to exit the runway after landing roll out as he was quite content to just sit there on the runway. They both taxied back to the runway to re-terrorize the skies on their way back to the other airport despite them both blaming clouds on their pitiful performance. Both were instructed to 'fly straight-out ' when cleared for take off. Neither one followed this instruction either and ended up being a hazard to aircraft in the pattern on the parallel runway. Once again the excuse given for not following instructions was that there were clouds in the sky. The C172 apologized over and over in order to use that as his 'get out of jail free card'. Recommendation; there must be some sort of standard of competence established when it comes to using the ENGLISH language while operating a flying machine. Also; these flight schools need to quit sending out their incredibly incompetent students on solo flights when they are not ready to do so. I'm sick and tired of dealing with these situations every day of every week! The FAA harps continually on how imperative it is to have clear communication in our line of business.....well I agree.....so let's see some action on the issue and get this incessant problem resolved!




Synopsis: Local Controller described two very confused pilots from a near by flight school that were having extreme difficult locating the landing airport as well as other language difficulties; the reporter frustrated with FAA's lack of language oversight.