elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B DAL
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Arrival to DAL. An SR22 called me and was too close to DR1's airspace. I turned him away and then asked Feeder East if they had turned him off of the arrival (YEAGR1). They said no. This arrival places aircraft in too close of proximity to other people's airspace. Depending on where the aircraft starts his 'Heading 310' as published appears to place him either too close to DR1's airspace or too close to Dallas South's airspace.[We should] change this procedure and provide proper guidance for conventional aircraft to ensure separation from other people's airspace. A 'heading 310' published on the arrival 30 miles from the airport being thread like a needle through other people's airspace is not proper guidance for conventional aircraft. Put them back on some type of VOR guidance to ensure separation.




Synopsis: An Approach Controller addressed his concern that the tracks of non-FMS equipped aircraft utilizing the YEAGR (Non RNAV) STAR (via a 310 heading from YEAGR) are insufficiently precise to avoid traffic conflicts with other controller's airspace as they approach the airport.
Date: 201810
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Baggage Service Office Agent noted the bag on the carousel with battery loose/falling out. She placed the bag aside and called Supervisor. When the customer arrived to pick up the bag; she stated that the bag was checked at the gate. According to her; no one reminded/questioned her on the bag or the contents. Customer was advised of [Company] policy and bag features for future travel.




Synopsis: Customer Service Agent at arrival baggage claim reported battery powered suitcase was incorrectly transported.
Date: 202002
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B LAX
Aircraft component: Pax Seat
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon take off row 11 D;E; and F directly in front of my JS lifted up off its tracks and rolled back into the row behind. It was attached only by its back bolts. The passengers in row 12 were able to push it back forward. For landing we had to reseat the passengers in row 11 by accommodating one in the only open seat available on the aircraft and reseat 2 non-revs in JSs 1L aisle side and 4R and seat the remaining 2 passengers from row 11 in those now open non rev seats.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that seat row came out of the tracks on takeoff.
Date: 201308
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: Fuel Storage System
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 Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Fuel imbalance at 390; center tank feeding engines; rapid fuel loss in left tank.  Rapid fuel loss only slowed down when the left thrust lever brought to idle.  We returned to our departure airport.


Second narrative: Upon leveling off at FL390 we received a fuel imbalance alert. There was 3;500 LBS in center tank; 8;500 in right main and about 7;400 in left main. The aircraft was configured to be using fuel from the center tank but the left main was decreasing. We then set up for crossfeed by leaving the crossfeed open and turning the left main pumps off. The fuel amount continued to decrease in the left main at a good rate. Referencing the QRH; we found engine shut down procedures and troubleshooting to discover where leek is. We were confident the problem was in the left main [tank] and did not want to exacerbate the situation in any way. Deciding to return with a constant descent we brought left [engine] to idle and used thrust from only the right [engine] as needed. This was the only


Synopsis: B737 crew experiences a fuel imbalance upon leveling off at FL390 while feeding both engines from the center tank; with the left tank being low. With the cross feed open and the left tank pumps off the imbalance continues to increase. Flight returns to departure airport.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
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 Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My First Officer and I were flying Aircraft X from ZZZ to [our destination]. Climbing out of 11;000 feet the white box around the engine instruments started flashing. I then noticed the Number 1 oil quantity was indicating 0 with LO caution. We decided to level off and trouble shoot. The First Officer continued to fly and talk to ATC. We still had normal oil pressure but saw that oil temperature was increasing. So we decided to complete a precautionary engine shutdown. I ran the Engine Shutdown/Failure Checklist. After securing the engine we [notified ATC] and returned to ZZZ. I notified Dispatch; ZZZ Ops; and FAs (Flight Attendants). I ran the performance numbers for flaps 15 landing at ZZZ.I took aircraft control at 4;000 feet and successfully completed landing at ZZZ. We taxied to the gate normally. After talking to mechanics they confirmed the oil quantity was empty. I wrote a logbook entry up. I then called Dispatch and talked to Dispatcher; Maintenance Control; and Chief Pilot on Call. The only question is that there is no real guidance for a zero oil indication in the QRH. We assessed the situation and determined the precautionary shutdown was best and safest course of action.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported shutting down the Number 1 engine due to a complete loss of oil quantity.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: AHRS/ND
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
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: I was the pilot flying during level cruise flight approximately 60 miles north of ZZZ. Captain's PFD attitude indications and NAV display/HDG information failed concurrently. We were approaching a line of weather and I elected not to continue IMC with a failed AHRS system. I declared an emergency requested a turn for ZZZ and we began a descent to maintain VMC. The QRH was referenced and complied with - the landing was uneventful. My decision to divert was reinforced; as I was concerned for the integrity of the remaining AHRS system. This decision was made based on the fact that on the previous leg (same aircraft) inbound to [destination] we had the First Officer's #2 AHRS fail and after a 6 hour delay it was replaced prior to [departure].


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: MD-83 flight crew reported loss of #1 AHRS in cruise flight. They declared an emergency and diverted to a nearby suitable airport.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-4
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Other CFI
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was landing at ZZZ. This was my third landing of the morning. The first two landings were perfect and uneventful. On the third landing the approach and touchdown appeared normal then suddenly; when on the runway;  the airplane veered to the right and then entered a ground loop. The runway was closed to all traffic at that time.  Upon inspection of the runway a dead Prairie Dog was found in the vicinity of where I landed. It appears as though my right main tire struck the Prairie Dog which caused me to veer to the right.  There were no injuries. The right main landing gear collapsed and the propeller did contact the ground. Prairie Dogs have been observed on a regular basis at this airport.




Synopsis: Pilot reported striking a prairie dog on landing; causing a ground loop and damage to the aircraft which blocked the runway.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Wheel
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Manuals; Logbook Entry; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: With this report; I am trying to find an answer to my questions that have gone unanswered regarding the concern I have with the use of the B737-Max nose landing gear wheel onto the B737-NG. The IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalog) says you can use 737-Max Nose Wheel XXXXXXXXX on the 737-NG; they are interchangeable but once this MAX wheel is installed; it does not turn freely like the other wheels. Something seems wrong. After removing the wheel to inspect why it wouldn't spin; I inspected the wheel bearings from the MAX wheel and found out that the MAX wheel uses an outer bearing that is not listed on the 737-NG IPC. Part Number XXXA-XXXXX. Can you use a wheel that is listed on the IPC; but the wheel bearing is not? The MAX IPC does not break down the nose wheel assembly like the 737-NG IPC does. Maybe I missed something? So; my concern is that the wheel does not spin freely and the outer bearing is not listed on the 737-NG IPC. I see the 737-NG flying with the 737-MAX nose wheel. But I have refused to install this wheel until I can get an answer to my question. Part number of the MAX wheel bearing should be listed in the 737-NG IPC737-NG IPC-XX-YY-ZZ-AB737-MAX IPC-XX-YY-ZZ-BA




Synopsis: Technician reported confusion over effectivity and interchangability of B737NG and B737MAX nose wheel assemblies and refused to install a wheel assembly on an aircraft until determination could be made.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Light Transport
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At ZZZ; an uncontrolled airport; my student and I had just landed. We cleared the runway and taxied to Runway XX for another lap in the pattern. Making appropriate radio calls; we searched for traffic and then lined up on Runway XX. To our surprise; there was an aircraft on the runway at the other end. It was too late to move by the time we realized the aircraft; some type of business jet; was taking off. We heard no radio calls from this aircraft either before or after the event. We knew that we were on the correct frequency because we heard comments from the other aircraft also waiting to depart Runway XX. The departing aircraft flew directly over us as we sat in position at the numbers XX.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported that after lining up on the runway; another aircraft was departing from the opposite end and had made no radio calls of their intentions.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Submitting this ASAP is to report and identify potentially hazardous flight conditions to Flight Operations.  At no time did [we] divert from an ATC clearance except to decrease our rate of climb during the recovery of a moderate to severe wake turbulence encounter.  Never did we deviate from Company procedures or CFR.  There were no injuries to Passengers or Crew.[On a] flight from SAN [we] encountered moderate to severe wake turbulence while climbing through about FL335 to our assigned altitude of FL340.  The onset of wake turbulence produced several jolts [causing] a roll moment right then left.  From initially a moderate wake; it developed quickly to a severe wake.  At that point; as pilot monitoring; I stated 'I have the aircraft.' A positive transfer in aircraft control was made; I disconnected the autopilot and maintained aircraft control by countering the [roll]; adjusting the flight path accordingly; which was effective.  I determined the wake encounter was severe when it was apparent the rolling moment was going to exceed the roll-control authority of the aircraft. After about 15 seconds from onset; the aircraft was returned to our assigned altitude; straight and level; in a stable flight condition.  The autopilot was re-engaged.  ATC was notified of our wake encounter; reporting it as moderate to severe wake turbulence.  ATC stated the wake was generated by a Company aircraft.  However; we were never informed or aware of another aircraft in our flight path.  The winds aloft were approximately 310/20 (a direct headwind); i.e.; flight path was apparently directly up trailing vortex core of preceding aircraft.  Flight characteristics after encounter were determined to be normal for the rest of the flight.  Aircraft components and equipment operated normally after recovery and throughout landing rollout.  A logbook writeup was made after consulting with Dispatcher and Maintenance Control.


Second narrative: I don't think that there is anything the crew can do to avoid this situation as there are too many variables. However; with the precision of modern aircraft to fly exactly where previous aircraft have flown; separation standards under certain wind conditions might need to be adjusted.


Synopsis: B737-300 flight reported encountering moderate to severe wake turbulence in climb at FL335 that resulted in a roll right and then left that exceeded the roll authority of the ailerons.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While at cruise at FL360; FO was PF; the aircraft abruptly banked to the right. Autopilot could not counter rate of roll and FO intervened manually. Return to wings level flight accomplished. Descent and turn off course was requested to avoid additional wake turbulence. I checked with the Flight Attendants to verify they and the passengers were ok. After the flight; we debriefed as a crew. Dispatch and Chief Pilot were notified after the flight.

Callback: Reporter had no additional information to add to the report.



Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence in cruise flight at FL360 that resulted in an abrupt bank to the right.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 4 separate TCAS events within 45-60 secs. We received a TCAS TA; traffic was approximately 8 o'clock and less than 1 mile 800 feet below. We then received a TCAS RA (Monitor Vertical Speed; target VS zero). I complied with the TA; and told the PM to notify ATC. The TA was over; and I returned to a descent to maintain glideslope. We then received another RA (Monitor Vertical Speed; target VS +300-500). I complied with the second TA; and when the RA was over I returned to a descent to re-establish glideslope. We then received a third RA (CLIMB VS target +2000). Strike 3; game over; I'm all done playing; max effort climb to escape the traffic. Traffic on ILS 16L encroached on our 16R final approach course. We were established on the LOC/GS and maintain 210 KTS about 3 miles from the final approach fix.I applied full thrust and began an escape maneuver. I asked the PM to notify ATC that we were in a TCAS Climb. She asked if we wanted another approach; and before I could answer she broke us off the ILS with a right turn to 260. We were at 10;400 and requested a new altitude assignment. We were given 10;000 and I descended. Autopilot was re-engaged. We were vectored for another visual to 16R and landed without further incident. While being vectored back to the approach; ATC said: 'if you would just notify ATC that you can't accept simultaneous ILS approaches we could give you extra spacing.' I responded that we shoot close proximity simultaneous ILS every day; and the TCAS never goes off 4 times; with 3 separate RA commands. I further stated that we had been established on the LOC/GS and the Airbus on 16L seemed very close to us in our estimation (800 ft below and less than 1 mile). ATC advised that we had 'both looked pretty good to her.' I was flabbergasted that she made it seem like it was my fault? Clearly there was a loss of separation today. We all concurred that the Airbus on 16L was clearly TOO CLOSE TO US.


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


Synopsis: EMB145 flight crew reported multiple TCAS RA events during an ILS 16R approach to DEN and went around.