elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Oil Seals
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout; the #2 engine oil quantity dropped to 1 quart. We ran the QRH checklist for Engine Oil Quantity Low/Decreasing.  The engine oil pressure was initially in the green band but then dropped below the green band. At this point we decided to shutdown the number 2 engine following the QRH checklist.  Since the QRH stated that we consider landing at the nearest suitable field; we notified ATC and returned to ZZZ for an uneventful landing. The event was caused by a rapid oil leak in the #2 engine.


Second narrative: Shortly after takeoff we noticed our number 2 oil quantity had dropped to 1 quart indicated by an amber '1'.  Aircraft was clean and the After Takeoff Checklist had just been accomplished.  As Pilot Flying I continued to fly the aircraft while the Captain read the checklist 'Engine Oil Quantity Low/Decreasing'.  Oil pressure was lower than Eng 1 and Eng 3 indications but still within the green band at approximately 35 psi.  The pressure; at a somewhat low rate; began to decrease getting down to 30 psi over the course of approximately 2-3 minutes.  At 30 psi the indication turned amber.  At this time we decided; per the checklist; to secure the number 2 engine.  We then notified ATC.  The Captain read and executed the Engine Shutdown Inflight checklist.  Once all checklists were complete the Captain assumed the Pilot Flying duties and I became the Pilot Monitoring.  We opted to return to ZZZ and set up for the visual approach.  We execute a flaps 35 autoland landing to [runway].  After landing and off the runway the fire/crash crew visually inspected the number 2 engine and reported nothing noticeably [wrong] with the aircraft.  Once in the chocks and shutdown we were informed about a large amount of oil that had leaked out of the engine onto the aircraft. The cause was rapid oil loss in the number 2 engine.


Synopsis: MD11 flight crew reported an uneventful air return due to an engine malfunction.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Took off from FDK. Flight was to go from FDK to ANP; ANP is in the SFRA. SFRA flight plan was filed properly. Have been flying the SFRA for a very long time. Potomac controllers are having a terrible time of receiving transponder signals (even though we are seeing reply lights on our transponders) and they are also having a difficult time hearing our comms in the area of the SFRA boundary that is near FDK through the EMI VOR. This sets up a bad situation of planes being forced to fly circles or racetrack patterns outside the SFRA until the controllers hear us and see us on their scopes. We were trying to get contact lower and kept going higher until comm and transponder could be barely usable by the controllers.Our Beechcraft has fairly modern avionics in it; Garmin 430; King 76C; etc. All boxes test out perfectly and work elsewhere in the IFR system fine. The Potomac communication and transponder arrangement is poor at best; in my opinion.We did not have any SFRA or other regulation problems. I just want to tell someone that this is not a good or safe situation. In heavy traffic situations; you might have a number of planes orbiting outside of the KFDK area and the SFRA; this is not a large flying area for multiple planes to be orbiting in an uncontrolled area.Please have the FAA fix the transponder problem and the communication problem for flight into the SFRA before a midair occurs.

Callback: The reporter is acquainted with many other pilots who have experienced the same difficulties; some with new aircraft and or equipment. He also believes that the problems with transponder reception in this area have gotten worse over the last couple of years.



Synopsis: BE35 pilot reports difficulty obtaining clearance to enter the DCA SFRA from the north due to the inability of ATC to detect his transponder and those of many other pilots below the Class B floor of 3000 feet.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CNO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CNO
ATC / advisory: Tower CNO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was IFR inbound to CNO on RNAV RWY 26R. At about 6 miles out when he contacted me; there was traffic at his 1 o'clock and 1-2 miles same altitude Aircraft Y. Aircraft Y was not on my frequency and was just outside the Delta airspace just about 5 miles east. I gave numerous traffic calls for Aircraft Y. At about a mile and half separation; I issued the IFR to descend which led him to continue on the approach with an early descent. Aircraft Y passed behind and about 400 higher than Aircraft X. Just as Aircraft Y passed behind Aircraft X; said he had the traffic in sight and said that was scary. due to the pilot saying it was scary an NMAC would be done. Since I wasn't talking to the transitioning aircraft who was last talked to by ONT with just one traffic call then a frequency change; I was never talking to Aircraft Y.Extend the Class Delta more east so aircraft would be forced to contact CNO. have better traffic calls for aircraft from previous facility to eliminate NMAC or having ONT give the aircraft a frequency change to CNO Tower to have better control and communication with all aircraft.




Synopsis: CNO Tower Controller reported issuing inbound IFR a descent to avoid NORDO traffic resulted in a NMAC.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arriving on the SEAVU 2; we had set up and briefed the ILS 24R approach. Upon checking in with SCT Approach; we were cleared for the ILS 25L. Prior to changing approaches in the FMS; the MCP was set in VNAV PATH at 10;000 FT. Once the ILS 25L was set in the FMS; I set 1;900 FT in the altitude window to allow a descent on the approach profile. Just prior to KRAIN at approximately 9;600 FT; we were attempting to brief the [Runway] 25L approach when ATC told us to level at 9;000 FT and said we were supposed to cross KRAIN at 10;000 FT. We acknowledged and were then cleared to continue the approach. We were subsequently cleared for the visual approach and landed with no further event. When last-minute runway changes are made; correct altitude and MCP settings must be verified prior to descending below any crossing restrictions and briefing the new approach.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reports descending below the KRAIN crossing restriction during the ILS 25L approach at LAX after changing the FMC from an expected ILS 24R approach.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OMA.Airport, NE
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C OMA
ATC / advisory: TRACON OMA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were planned to land right at max landing weight on the short flight to OMA. We were full; and slightly over fueled; plus had a FAA Jump seater for new LCA (Line Check Airmen) observation. We discussed and monitored the fuel condition throughout the flight. Initially; we appeared to be able to land right at Max LDW (Landing Weight); and this seemed to be the case up until cruise. After the mid-way point of the flight; it became clear that we would need to burn about 1001 lbs. extra to meet MAX LDW. We descended early; configured early; and at 15 nm to touchdown; the FMS fuel on arrival number showed that we would land 30 pounds under max landing weight. The actual FOB (Fuel on Board); however; did not decrease as fast as predicted for the next 10 miles or so. While the number was trending in the right direction; at 1;000 ft. AGL our actual FOB was hovering around 70-80 pounds overweight. I stated to the PF (Pilot Flying) that we just weren't where we needed to be with the fuel and called for a go around. The PF performed probably the best go around I've experienced in years. We joined a downwind; completed the checklists; I made a quick PA; and we flew another approach and landed well under Max LDW.The fuel number was going to be close; but I probably could have asked for holding instructions at 10-15 miles away until absolutely sure we were under weight. Monitoring this is such a dynamic issue though; since the quantities vary with acceleration and pitch; and burn rate with varying thrust. Even though things seemed to be trending fast enough; it just wasn't enough in the end. Next time I will probably elect to hold to be sure.




Synopsis: CRJ900 Captain reported being slightly over fueled on a full flight planned to land at Maximum Landing Weight. Measures are taken to burn extra fuel during descent and approach but are not sufficient and a go around is initiated. The next approach is below max landing weight.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Flying the RNAV GPS Runway 10L. Stable in LNAV and VNAV PATH. Passing the FAF; gear down Flaps 20; we got a 'TERRAIN TERRAIN PULL UP' (only once). Started a GPWS recovery and quickly changed to a go around. Lowest GPWS altitude called out was 1000 ft. A ridge line does pass across the FAF landing Runway 19. Weather on ATIS was 4000+ so we didn't expect to be in the WX at the FAF. It was 4000+ on the ILS to 19. Tower instructed speed 170 to the FAF. With 20+ kts of headwind I don't see that as a factor.Aircraft was on course and on path; my guess is at 20 flaps we are not at a landing flap so the GPWS looks farther out. Add a note to the 10-7 page to be at landing flaps before the ridge line. Runway 10 is rarely used at SFO.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported executing a go-around after receiving a GPWS terrain warning on an RNAV GPS approach to SFO Runway 10L.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were holding short of Runway XX for an IFR Departure; monitoring the assigned frequency. Tower asked if we were ready to go and we indicated that we were ready for takeoff. We were cleared for takeoff Runway XX and instructed to maintain runway heading to 3;000 ft. As we were lining up on the runway we saw Aircraft Y turning a tight left base to land on Runway XX.  We heard Tower say 'Aircraft X stop; stop; stop!'  We aborted the takeoff and maintained our position at the end of the runway.  After Aircraft Y landed and cleared the runway we were cleared again for takeoff.  In the climb we also responded to an RA (Resolution Advisory) before leveling off at 3;000 ft.  We were already in the climb and the avionics instructed us to maintain our vertical speed.  We received the clear of conflict call around 2;800 ft.




Synopsis: CE-525 Captain reported an aborted takeoff due to landing traffic and an RA after departure.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: E68.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: CTAF E68
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was with my students practicing maneuvers SW of E68 at 5;500 feet. I picked up a signal for traffic headed northbound and I was in a southbound direction. To avoid crossing in front of traffic I made a hard left turn because he was in a northwesterly direction. When I saw on my iPad that the aircraft was past me I made another 180 degree turn toward the south to start setting up for stalls. Immediately when I turned around my ADS-B alerted me that traffic was now headed in my direction and was extremely close. To ensure that my Stratus was not malfunctioning I flew straight and level and the aircraft was now turning towards my plane again. So I immediately turned right and pitched down in an evasive way to pick up speed and get away. The plane stayed at same altitude and looked as if he was turning left away from me. At this time I was calling on the CTAF to let the traffic know what I my intentions were and where I was headed and nothing ever came over frequency. I continued to make radio calls and asking for him to come over frequency; but never did. This whole time I am looking outside to identify traffic; but could never locate because he kept flying behind me and almost following me with every move that I made. I ended up abandoning the area to head back to terminate my flight.




Synopsis: PA28 instructor reported an NMAC in the vicinity of E68.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On DATE Aircraft X was pushing off of gate. While removing the tug from the aircraft; the tug struck the R/H NLG door. A Ramp CSM came out to take a look at it; and told the flight crew that there was no damage and that the flight was safe to continue. The flight crew said that they felt a bump from the flight deck and wanted Maintenance to come out and look at it. The aircraft returned to the gate and Maintenance did a GVI and found that the push pull rod for the door retraction was bent and the aircraft would need to be removed from service. The flight continued on with a different aircraft and Aircraft X was repositioned to the hangar. During initial inspection at the hangar it was noticed that the push pull rod was actually broken and had separated from the door.The event occurred in my opinion because the ramp wanted to avoid a lengthy delay; and wanted an on time departure. The Ramp CSM's have done this in the past and obviously continue to do this now.Let Maintenance do the job we are trained to do.




Synopsis: Lead Technician reported ground damage that was misidentified by Ramp and CSM personnel was severe enough to remove the aircraft from service for repairs.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp BWI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: There is an abundance of FOD (ongoing issue for months) that has the potential of damaging our aircraft engines at the very end of the back alley next to BWI Gate X. One primary contributor to the FOD/trash problem is the trash dumpster. The trash dumpster is next to BWI Gate X Safety Zone. It often has its doors left open; one dumpster top lid is broken off (I previously reported the broken dumpster top lid to BWI Company Operations and to the BWI Airport; and nothing has been done to fix the problem; months after my initial communication); is overflowing with trash/FOD (boxes; large plastic bags; etc.) which spill onto the flight line; and days go by with FOD/trash blowing around and laying on the ground with nobody (BWI Airport personnel or Company ramp agents) picking up the FOD/trash.I left on a flight on (date); when I observed a large clear plastic trash bag behind the dumpster sitting on the black plastic dumpster top lid; which had broken off the dumpster (laying on the ground). I also observed a large orange plastic tarp/plastic (large enough to damage an engine) wrapped around the base of a piece of yellow ground equipment (not moving with the wind because it is still caught on the yellow ground equipment). Other small FOD/trash (plastic bag; paper cup; etc.) was on the ground in the vicinity of the trash dumpster; just outside the BWI Gate X Safety Zone. I left on another flight today; (date); three days later; and the very same trash/FOD mentioned above was still laying on the ground. Nobody has picked up the trash/FOD in over three days. BWI Airport needs to repair/replace dumpster (next to BWI Gate X) with the broken dumpster top lid and remove the old broken dumpster top lid from the flight ramp. It would be even better if all the dumpsters were removed from the BWI flight line to reduce the FOD hazard to our engines. BWI Airport needs to communicate with contractors (airport restaurant operators; etc.) to secure the dumpster lids/doors after each use and stop dumping trash onto the flight line. Company BWI leadership needs to enforce our FOD awareness program. If ramp agents; ramp supervisors; Managers of Ramp Operations see FOD on our ramp; make arrangements to have it removed expeditiously so we minimize the FOD hazard to our engines. Our aircraft operate in a very confined space.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported an ongoing FOD problem at BWI.