elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Cruising at Mach .82/FL310; the aircraft entered an area of heavy precipitation. Engine ignition override was on. Crew observed N2 roll back to approximately 35% and received a Level 2 ENG 2 RPM LO. The throttle did not move and all other engine parameters were normal; EGT; oil pressure/temp. There was no yaw. The crew addressed the QRC; but the engine N2 RPM increased back to normal indications before they could run it. The rollback lasted less than 2 minutes. All indications were normal for remainder of the flight. Unknown cause.




Synopsis: MD-11 Second Officer reported encountering heavy precipitation in cruise flight when engine N2 began to roll back with a caution message; leading to no throttle movement.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were delayed 30 minutes leaving the gate due to an EDCT time (1 hr 13 min past scheduled departure). After pushing and beginning taxi ground gave us a spot to sit and wait out our extended delay. We had shut down the APU and taxied out on one engine to comply with the new APU directive on running for no more than 10 minutes. However; once we heard from ground that we would be sitting in the same spot for more than 20 minutes we elected to restart the APU and sit with that running and the engines off to conserve fuel. We had been sitting for several minutes with only the APU on when all of a sudden; unpredictably; the APU failed. This resulted in only battery power being available. Knowing we had only 10 minutes of electricity on batteries we contacts everyone we could to inform them of the situation and request a tow back into the gate. We told ground that we would be uncontainable. We told operations that we had lost power. We made a PA informing the passengers and Flight Attendants (FA) what had happened. We then called dispatch on the phone and informed them. Now sitting on [the] taxiway with no power I realized that we had no way to speak with the FA's and/or passengers so I elected to open the cockpit door to allow communications with the cabin. Once the tow and the airport authority arrived at the aircraft I opened the cockpit window and spoke with the ground personnel to get us towed back into the gate. Upon arrival maintenance met the aircraft and attempted a restart on the APU. It ran for just under a minute and failed again. At this point we changed aircraft to continue our flight. Even though I wouldn't normally expect the APU to fail; in the future during ground delays I may consider keeping at least one engine running to make sure we have a source of air. Once the APU failed we were stuck. With at least one engine running a crossbreed can always be performed.




Synopsis: An ERJ-175 crew with a delayed departure time; elected to hold with both engines shutdown; APU power only. After the APU failed the crew scrambled to notify ATC and company to secure a tow before the 10 minute battery power expired.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
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 EGLL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot monitoring on a flight to LHR. On approach the captain flew a very standard Continuous descent approach (CDA) into London with the LHR ATC director calling our speeds throughout the entire approach segment. We were told to maintain 160 kts until 4 DME to runway final. We were at flaps 15 with the gear up at 1500 AGL without landing clearance. There was another aircraft in front of us which delayed our landing clearance. Within 3 DME to landing I made the 1000 foot call and indicated no landing clearance. The captain was configuring gear down and extending the flaps etcetera between 1200-500 ft. We then received late landing clearance right about the time that the flaps were at 30 degrees and at around 500 ft AGL. The Relief Pilot had noticed that we were slow in configuring and prompted the captain to configuring around 1200 AGL. The landing checklist was completed and the decision was made to continue to landing as the approach was stable with airspeed; flaps correct and favorable VMC day weather at LHR. The captain asked us all if we were all ok to continue to land and we all agreed that this was acceptable since we were configured around 500 ft AGL. We debriefed the approach errors on the flight deck and all agreed to file a report due to being right at the lower limit of our SOP (500 ft). The captain handled the situation extremely professionally and we thoroughly debriefed the factors that led to the slower than normal configuration.Fatigue was most certainly a factor seeing that it was [early] on our body clocks and we had just completed an eight hour flight. An additional contributing factor was the late landing clearance into LHR from the tower and our fixation on the landing traffic on final in front of us. The main reason for filing this report is the fact that fatigue and late configuration lead to us conducting a landing right at the lower limit of our SOP.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported an unstabilized approach into EGLL after configuring late due to ATC requirement to maintain 160 knots and 1500 feet to 4 DME.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On arrival [an Air Carrier] declared emergency due to smoke in the cockpit as they approached [an intersection] descending to cross it at 16;000. I ran over from a different D-Side to assist. I immediately called TRACON to coordinate direct [to the airport]. Their response was that they would be unable to get him down on such a route. They requested we put him on a (very indirect) 270 heading so they could get him down or give him direct [another intersection]. After 3 phone calls; we (somewhat forcibly) gave them the aircraft direct a fix nearer the airport of the pilots' choosing. We then observed the aircraft being turned due west to what appeared to be the originally desired 270 heading in what appeared to be an effort to sequence the aircraft behind another inbound. This issue comes up all the time with TRACON concerning both emergencies and Medevacs. They are completely unwilling to accept aircraft direct [to the airport] from the southeast because of the terrain. In the cases of our Medevacs and; in this instance; [the emergency Air Carrier]; the pilots involved are all quite familiar with the terrain surrounding the area and would not request such routes if their aircraft were not completely capable of descending to the field elevation in the 15 to the airport. This was a legit emergency with smoke in the cockpit where time can certainly matter. Do we as Center controllers just have an unreasonable expectation of what priority handling should entail?




Synopsis: Enroute controller voiced concern regarding the TRACON's handling of an emergency aircraft with regard to priority; often failing to afford priority to emergency and Medevac operations.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Yesterday we landed a heavy -700 at LGA on Runway 22 just after a rain shower had passed the airport.  Aircraft ahead of us were reporting 'Fair' braking action so we changed our data from 'Good' to 'Fair' and decided to land flaps 40 rather than 30 with autobrakes set at '3'.  On short final; I noted numerous fairly large puddles on the runway.  In typical fashion the initial deceleration was about normal.  However as we decelerated through about 110; the antiskid began cycling; and below 60 we were sliding quite a bit.  We also called 'Fair' braking but in retrospect I think it was 'Poor'.The runway doesn't appear adequately crowned and doesn't appear to be typical concrete since it is black in color.  This is the first time I've landed at LGA with a thoroughly wet runway.  I would compare braking capability with Texas black top roads when oil from the tar seeps to the surface soon after it gets wet.  Of all our airports; I think LGA Runway 22 has the worst braking coefficient when wet.  This can be hazardous.You might want do a Flight Data Recorder (FDR) pull on this aircraft to see how the aircraft actually decelerated.  And; perhaps we should gather braking action data and work with the folks at LGA to have this runway resurfaced.  In the meantime we might want our Crews to compute braking whenever the runway is wet at LGA.




Synopsis: A B737-700 Captain believes that a thoroughly wet Runway 22 at LGA produces less than fair braking action due to drainage and surface condition.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BMI.Tower, IL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D BMI
ATC / advisory: Tower BMI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During approach to Runway 2 into BMI; there are four bright lights approximately 0.5 miles from the approach end. They appear to be part of a sports complex. The lights appear to be PAPI lighting and in IMC conditions; such as low ceiling and/or visibility; and may cause spatial disorientation. Due to the proximity to the airport; we momentarily thought the runway environment was in sight. After cross checking flight instruments; we continued down another approximately 200 feet to where we saw the actual PAPI lights and runway environment; at approximately 800 feet. We landed following a stabilized approach and without further incident.There are four bright white lights approximately 0.5 from the approach end of runway 2 that appear to be PAPI lights on the same side as the real PAPIs. Suggest a NOTAM; remark; comment; or other publication should be made available to all airmen wishing to use the ILS; LOC; or RNAV (GPS) to Runway 2 at BMI.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported bright lights from a sports field complex near the approach end of the runway were mistaken for the PAPIs.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ1.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ1; Class C ZZZ; Class E ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ1; TRACON ZZZ2
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In the vicinity of ZZZZZ intersection power was reduced to idle as aircraft intercepted descent path on the ZZZZZ 5 arrival.  Master Caution; Fuel; and Filter Bypass light on #1 Engine illuminated. Flying duties were transferred to First Officer and QRH procedure was accomplished.  Only the #1 Engine Filter Bypass was illuminated and the engine was operating normally. Decision was made to continue to ZZZ and request priority handing as a precaution and to avoid any unnecessary delays. ATC controllers were very helpful with one exception. When we checked in with Approach Control  (I believe the frequency was X) the controller immediately issued us a 40 knot reduction in airspeed to sequence another aircraft in front of us. This would have created an unstable approach and was the exact situation we were trying to avoid by asking for priority handling. We reminded him that we were a priority aircraft and were beginning to slow as we configured. Normal landing was uneventful with Tower and Ground controllers again very helpful.  Dispatch; FODO [Flight Officer Duty Officer] and line maintenance in ZZZ were contacted and briefed. Flight Attendants were debriefed.Brief Approach controller on importance of assisting Emergency Aircraft.




Synopsis: Captain reported an engine fuel filter bypass light illuminated. Captain elected to request priority handling to land at destination airport.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Manuals; Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon completion of preflight; my First Officer informed me that our aircraft was lacking textual [lettering] RVSM area markings. He also informed [me] that several months ago he had encountered a similar situation and had been told by Maintenance that these markings were not required. However; the First Officer showed me photos of the B767 parked at the gate next to us. That airplane had those [RVSM] markings. We inquired Maintenance regarding the legality of this; and were told we better make a write-up. The Mechanic who showed up in the cockpit was not certain if this was deferrable. Instead of deferring this item; Maintenance literally brought out a ladder and a marker pen and by hand added the text to the sides of the aircraft. Given this; it seems to me that perhaps this text is indeed required for dispatch in RVSM airspace? If so; I and countless other company pilots may have inadvertently been flying B767s and/or B757s in our Air Carrier fleet that are missing required markings. Since I rarely do preflights; I do not know if I have flown such aircraft. I do know that I have flown this particular aircraft in recent past. However; I obviously do not know if this aircraft; at that time; was lacking these markings. Therefore; I am filing this report as a disclosure that I today found out that I may; or may not; have flown company aircraft inadequately marked and possibly illegally dispatched.




Synopsis: A B767-300 Captain was informed by First Officer their aircraft was lacking textual RVSM area markings. Questions with Maintenance; whether or not the RVSM area markings were deferrable; or required for dispatch; remained unclear.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were descending for landing when I smelled an odor in the airplane. I then noticed the Captain's side IVSI was blank which I initially associated with the odor. I put my mask on then my First Officer put his mask on. I [advised] Approach. I briefed my Flight Attendant; then the Flight Attendant started to search for a source of the odor in the crew closet and lavatory area. I then began the AIRCRAFT FIRE or SMOKE checklist. I determined the odor was from an unknown source because at this time the IVSI was back to normal. I followed the checklist to 'Electrical.' The checklist turns off the DC Gens AC Gens AUX BATT MAIN BATT and EMER LIGHTS. I did turn off the DC Gens then looked forward in the checklist and realized I was going to lose important equipment especially while IMC and already planning for an RNAV approach. I called my Flight Attendant who did not find an odor and reported everything was 'normal.' At this time I went back in the checklist to KNOWN SOURCE - FLIGHTDECK. There was not an active fire I followed the checklist to LAND AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE. We landed and parked then hustled the passengers off the airplane. Throughout the incident there was never the sight of smoke.


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


Synopsis: DHC8-300 Captain detected the odor of hot electrical wiring during descent for landing. The Flight Attendant was notified and advised there was no odor in the cabin and the checklist indicates to land as soon as practical; which was accomplished.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Super King Air 300
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Golden Eagle 421
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Satellite sector; configuration 3; with normal traffic. CPC working Flight Data notified me that ZZZ was requesting release off Runway 35L for a C421 and that they would provide visual with the traffic inbound. She asked if I would like her to get the release from LAST. I said yes and released. So; she got the coordination; and I assumed she also released the aircraft. After the incoming traffic had landed with no sign of the C421 departing; she came over and clarified that she had not released the aircraft; only had gotten release with LAST. I immediately called ZZZ and released the aircraft. At the time I had another IFR aircraft inbound to ZZZ about 15 miles south of the airport. Once the C421 departed and assigned 9;000 MSL; I cleared the BE30 for the Visual Approach. As the C421 was climbing; I realized that separation might be lost. I called traffic. Neither aircraft saw the other. I ended up canceling the approach clearance of the BE30 and turning him westbound; but separation was lost. There were several options that I did not take that would have prevented this occurrence. 1. Do not assume!! Verify which coordination was completed. 2. Call ZZZ Tower for Visual Separation; as the aircraft were within seven miles of the airport 3. Wait until the BE30 was within range of the airport before releasing the C421. 4. Leave it alone because it would have worked. It was actually after I canceled the approach clearance and climbed the aircraft that I lost separation.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller described a loss of separation event between an IFR arrival and departure complicated by failed internal coordination regarding a release and an intervention vector that did not provide adequate spacing.