elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approximately 39;000 ft.; I was called up to flight deck from my break for a fuel problem. The FO (First Officer) and Relief Pilot had the ECAM message 'FUEL LO TEMP'. They ran the checklist and after they turned on the OUTR TK XFR; the fuel in the left tip trim tank would not transfer and the 'OUTR TO INR FAULT' message appeared. This is when I was called up; I instructed them to call maintenance and dispatch. When I arrived; maintenance did not have any solutions and dispatch had informed us that another aircraft had the same problem and descended to 34;000 ft. and was suspecting contaminated fuel. We increased speed and descended to 34;000 ft. This allowed us to transfer the fuel to the mains. We climbed back up to 37;000 ft. and continued on to ZZZ with no further issues.




Synopsis: A330 flight crew reported a fuel issue during cruise that was solved by descending and speeding up.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Just prior to the EEP(ETOPS Entry Point) on a flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 we received an ACARS message from Dispatch informing us that a possible 'hoverboard' might have been loaded in the cargo area. It should not have been and with the dual concurrence of us and Dispatch it was decided that the safest course of action was an air return back to ZZZ. We discussed with Dispatch if they wanted us to burn down to a normal landing weight or land overweight. It was decided to land overweight and that Maintenance would met us at the gate and conduct the overweight inspection. We requested and received Runway 8L for landing due to its length and to minimize brake heating. The landing was normal and the overweight inspection was successfully accomplished and the 'hoverboard' was removed. Clearly; there was a breakdown somewhere that allowed an item of non approved Hazmat to be placed onboard the aircraft. How and why this happened is beyond the limited facts that I have available but I think a in-depth review of our processes and procedures with regards to these items would be warranted.


Second narrative: Prior to reaching the ETOPS Entry Point and Oceanic Airspace; we received a message from Dispatch informing us of a safety of flight issue regarding some luggage onboard. A Hoverboard (non-permitted item) had somehow passed through TSA screening and had potentially been loaded in a cargo compartment. In conjunction with Dispatch; we felt the safest decision was to return to our departure airport of ZZZ. This required an overweight landing and maintenance inspection. Not only was the item found on our aircraft; but apparently two Hoverboards were found. More extensive checks or passenger questioning during the check-in and security phase. Passengers need to also be made aware of the seriousness of having such Hazmat items onboard a plane.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported ACARS message during cruise which stated unapproved passenger Hover Board was erroneously loaded in the cargo compartment.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Logbook Entry

Narrative: While dispatching two aircraft at the same time last night we had an APU door fault on one of the aircraft. While filling out the MEL log item and placard for the APU door message I filled out the log page and started to sign off item and got involved adding a statement to the yellow placard requested by maintenance control. I forgot to come back to that log page and put my signature; I had the date filled out but missed the signature. It was an error on my part trying to get a flight crew out before they timed out. I was trying to comply with too many tasks at one time. Had two departures at the same time and a deadline. Take more time and attention to task at hand.


Second narrative: A Fuel door recycling Airworthiness Directive (AD) was complied with but the misc. 91 was not sent correctly. We were unaware that there was required text that was supposed to be sent along with the misc 91. This was a relatively new AD and the specifics of compliance were confusing. Since neither the First Officer or I had flown since this AD came out; the fact that wording was supposed to accompany the misc 91 was missed. It would be nice if the exact steps required were readily available in the logbook or somewhere handy during the preflight.


Synopsis: Maintenance Technician and a Flight Crew reported the log book was not signed off by maintenance and did not comply with an Airworthiness Directive.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ABQ.Tower, NM
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ABQ
ATC / advisory: Tower ABQ
Second aircraft: Military Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Y; requested an opposite direction departure from runway 21 due to operational necessity. I approved the request and instructed the aircraft to taxi to runway 21. At the same time; the approach controller vectored Aircraft X for a visual approach to runway 3; in accordance with the flow in use. As Aircraft Y was taxiing; I asked the pilot if he would be ready to go or if he needed time on the runway before starting departure roll. He informed me that he would need '30 seconds' on the runway. With Aircraft X 15 miles from the runway and cleared for a visual approach; I instructed Aircraft Y to turn right directly to the ABQ VOR and cleared him for takeoff. He taxied onto the runway and did not move for at least one minute. With Aircraft X 12 miles out; Aircraft Y rolled and became airborne but did not turn. At the same time Aircraft X checked on my frequency and requested S-turns to dissipate excess altitude. I approved S-turns to the right; away from Aircraft Y. I then instructed Aircraft Y to begin his right turn immediately; and at that point Aircraft X informed me that he was climbing due to a TCAS RA. When Aircraft Y informed me that he needed extra time; I should have had him wait until Aircraft X landed before allowing Aircraft Y to depart. I also could have asked the radar approach controller to take Aircraft X to runway 8; a runway which would have eliminated the issue of opposite direction flight paths.




Synopsis: ABQ Tower Controller reported of a TCAS RA event during an opposite direction operation. The departure did not turn as instructed leading to a loss of separation.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: I was tasked with replacing the Inboard (I/B) Thrust Reverser Blow-out door. The parts were requisitioned by my Supervisor in August 2012. I got the parts one day later at approximately XA:30pm. I had references on the requisition form that I could not find for the IPC; so I tried to find them myself.  What I came up with was different than the parts that were being comatted [shipping company material] from our ZZZ gateway to [our local] ZZZ1 gateway; so I tried to check the Part Number (P/N) in our inventory portal and that showed alternate part numbers that had the same base numbers. When I asked about this; I was told that those numbers are not always right. When I had part in hand and compared it to the damaged part it was identical. The part was undrilled for the mounting hinge installation; so I drilled it and installed it with the Hi-Loks and torqued the collars. I used the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) reference for installing Hi-Loks which secured the hinge to the frame of the Thrust Reverser (T/R). The Maintenance Manual (M/M) for removal and replacement; M/M 78-31-19 never mentions anything about drilling up the new part; only remove the collars[nuts] on the Hi-Loks; remove the door; install the door over the Hi-Loks and install the collars [nuts] back and close the door. I made the mistake of not putting the installed P/N or Serial Number (S/N) on the Logsheet because I didn't have a removed P/N or S/N; there wasn't one on the removed part.  Company inventory parts system caught the mistake.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic was informed he did not include a Part Number (P/N) or Serial Number (S/N) on a Logsheet after replacing an inboard Thrust Reverser Blow-out door on a B747-400 aircraft.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly upon leveling at FL360; we noticed a smell on the flight deck and we initiated an intercom call to the flight attendants. They immediately confirmed the 'burning smell/fumes'; but did not see any smoke. There were no associated EICAS/Warning messages. The Captain and I after initially applying the memory items assessed our position and possible alternates. The Captain and I determined best course of action was to reverse course and divert to ZZZ. We notified ATC and they gave us a clearance direct. I continued to speak with the flight attendants via the intercom; notified Dispatch and ran applicable emergency checklists. The Captain got clearance and started a descent into ZZZ and navigated around weather. The fumes were less noticeable after running the Smoke and Fumes/Smoke and Fumes removal checklists. At one time the passenger lighting system did go out. We followed ATC vectors and passed on required info. The Captain completed an ILS approach; cleared the runway and followed Fire Marshall instructions. No fumes were noticeable. Taxi to the gate was accomplished.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported detecting smoke after leveling off at FL360. The crew elected to divert to a suitable alternate. The fumes greatly diminished after the smoke and fumes checklist was accomplished.
Date: 202011
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: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: At trip report I looked at the pilot bulletin for temperature check instructions at ZZZ. Trip report time was XA:00L and according to the bulletin it would be accomplished at the departure gate for the time frame. I proceeded to the departure gate and upon arrival asked the gate agent about getting a temperature check. The agent said no one was there to do it and they don't do it. I was unable to get a temperature check.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported not being able to get a temperature check at the departure gate.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Jet Blast; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
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: Takeoff Runway 17R; near upset by jet blast. [Wide body] aircraft; facing west; added thrust and began its taxi movement just as our Aircraft X lifted off directly behind it... aircraft was adversely effected; but recovered.  Very unpleasant experience for crew and passengers..Taxiing aircraft jet blast affected aircraft taking off directly behind it.Ground Control needs to be aware of how aircraft under their control can affect safety of aircraft taking off (and landing).




Synopsis: Captain reported a near upset shortly after takeoff from DFW when his aircraft was affected by jet blast from a taxiing wide body aircraft.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A flight of four helicopters were pre coordinated by management to depart NUQ airport and transition the Class B of SFO at 1000 feet right over the departure end of Runway 28L and 28R. The flight did not want to talk to SFO tower but stay with departure. Departures were held; but arrivals continued to Runway 28L and 28R. I instructed my Front Line Manager that this was an unsafe operation in case of a go around. He instructed me to continue and not let SFO tower talk to them. The helicopters transitioned the airspace without an event; but this is an unsafe operation approved by management.The helicopters should be talking to the facility that owns the airspace that could have traffic for them.




Synopsis: NCT Controller disagreed with their Supervisor about which facility should retain communications with aircraft conducting a special operation.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Blade
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Logbook Entry

Narrative: During the walk around in ZZZ; I noted that 2 of the N1 fan blades were bent.  There was no documentation in our active logbook.  However; I called Maintenance Control to confirm if this was a previously reported (and deferred) item.  Maintenance Control says it was.  It seems to have been reported multiple times; since there is no way for pilots to see these previously reported items.  This is an unsafe maintenance practice where we cannot find out all of the previously reported maintenance items on a given aircraft.  Further; we have no way of knowing if this condition was within limits when first reported; and has worsened. Have an ongoing list available to pilots in the maintenance log that goes with the aircraft!




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported 2; N1 fan blades bent and not noted in logbook. Maintenance showed as reported and deferred several times. Captain stated they have no access to history of previous reports or deferments; to determine airworthiness.
Date: 202006
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A319
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: B2 Spirit/Bomber
Reporter organization: Other air medical
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During cruise flight at FL390 and on NAV guidance with an approximate heading of 060 degrees; ATC Center Controller ask if we were able to climb to FL400? I; the First Officer and the Pilot Monitoring; replied that we could not do that. ATC replied that we needed to turn left to a heading of 360 First Officer traffic immediately. I responded with the affirmative to ATC in my read back and the captain turned the aircraft left towards a heading of 360. I looked outside the aircraft while scanning the sky First Officer an aircraft and didn't see one. In the turn and about 30 seconds later we received a TCAS verbal 'traffic'! I looked at the TCAS display while dialing a lower screen distance to locate the intruder aircraft. I noticed an aircraft 100 feet below and approximately 1 to 3 o'clock. I looked outside the aircraft and saw a B2 bomber at 2 o'clock low. It appeared it was lower to us than just 100 feet. Maybe 300 to 500 feet below??? Approximately 10 seconds later; we received a TCAS RA 'Climb; climb; climb'! 'I responded to the Captain; auto pilot off flight directors off' and reached up while he was turning off the auto pilot I pushed off both flight directors. I then looked at the B2 and it was in a bank and appeared to be descending away from us going below our aircraft nose approximately 500 feet below us and crossing us right to our left. I responded to ATC that we were complying with a TCAS RA. When clear of the conflict; the captain descended the aircraft to FL390 and we continued to our destination. I ask ATC if the RA was in response to the B2 aircraft and he responded that it was. He elaborated that it was a flight of 3 and one of the aircraft was not were it was supposed to be above its block altitude. In complying with the Climb RA and in order to not possibly have a NMAC with the other aircraft; We exceeded the service ceiling of the Airbus 319 of FL390 and climb the aircraft to approximately FL39300. Lack of situational awareness from controller and possibly the B2 crew.




Synopsis: A319 pilot reported a NMAC at altitude requiring an RA maneuver.