elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was cleared for visual approach to Runway 16L. When the landing gear was put down for landing; did not get green; safe; indication for nose gear. Executed a go-around. After stabilized at altitude and completing QRH procedure; put gear down again. Again; did not get a safe indication. All landing gear lights tested normal. Declared an emergency. When the gear was put down again; did not get a safe nose gear indication. Cockpit nose gear pin did extend each time. Safe indication flickered and came on steady on short final. Landed without incident. Parked jet on runway; and was towed to gate.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: A MD-83 nose gear safe down and locked annunciator did not illuminate when the gear were extended so an emergency was declared; the checklist completed and a uneventful landing followed just as a safe indication was received.. The nose gear down lock pin extended during both gear extension.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the date of DATE me and another tech changed the high stage valve instead of the Nacelle pressure shut of valve; when opening up the engine we mistake the high stage valve for the shut off valve due to the fact that they are identical and close to each; we used the ipc to confirm the correct part number; but we was looking at the high stage valve. we used the wrong ref AMM 36-11-03 to change the high stage valve which we mistaken for the and nacelle shut off valve.In the AMM ref put a detailed step stating that there are two of the same valves that is right next to each other that is the same part number.


Second narrative: During maintence on Aircraft X; request from Maintenance Control; removed and replaced nacelle pressure shut of valve from log page. I replaced the high stage bleed valve instead of the nacelle pressure shut off valve. Both valves are identical in part number and are located side by side on the engine. Its very easy to confuse one from another. I suggest this could of been prevented if we had markings or decals on the engine that would have clearly indicate one valve from another. Another mechanic and supervisor assisted with maintenance and were also confused as the AMM Refernces pages; and pictures look very identical and refernces are one after another in the AMM.


Synopsis: Technician reported unclear references in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual resulted in replacing the wrong valve on an aircraft engine.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAD.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On takeoff when airborne I heard a loud noise and felt a jerk to the left and I realized that I hit something on the wing tip. The departure was from a dirt road on BLM land. The aircraft kept flying and seemed stable. I continued the flight to home base without incident.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reports hitting something with the left wing tip just after takeoff from a dirt road on BLM land. The aircraft is flown back to home base without incident.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G Y
Second aircraft: Robinson R22
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were returning from a transfer flight; still conducting Part 135 operations in BH206 while on approach from the NW into the base at approximately 1045 (cst); a civilian R22  was taking off from an off-airport LZ. I and the crew observed visually the aircraft takeoff and continue to climb to our altitude as we were established on a final into the base. The ADS-B was tracking the aircraft as well; the aircraft continued to fly within 500 feet laterally and 100 feet vertically as we were approximately 100 feet from landing. The R22 was not on any frequencies and our base is not in controlled airspace. No other issues were noted and the R22 continued to fly SE.




Synopsis: BH206 Pilot reported a NMAC with nordo R22 while landing
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 K (231) / Encore
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I entered the cloud tops; and immediately began to pick up light; possibly moderate rime ice. My airplane is not equipped for flight in icing conditions. No icing was forecast; the OAT was -6C. I told Center I needed higher (FL220) for ice; but my transmission was apparently blocked. Because of the situation; I started the climb. As soon as I could; I told the controller what I needed; and he cleared me to FL220; admonishing me not to climb without a clearance. Under the circumstances; I would do the same again. I had seen no traffic on the in-cockpit displays; and Center had not called higher traffic (either oncoming or overtaking.)




Synopsis: M20 pilot at FL200 encounters icing conditions and requests a climb from ATC but is apparently blocked by another transmission. A climb is initiated before another attempt is made to obtain clearance; resulting in an admonishment from the Controller involved.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DED.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G DED
ATC / advisory: CTAF DED
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
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 the instructor with a student training for a private pilot check-ride. The runway in use was Runway 30. My student entered mid-field left downwind for Runway 30 and made all appropriate calls. For example 10 miles out; 5 miles out; entering mid-field left downwind; left base; and final on the CTAF frequency. As we turned base another aircraft took off and was climbing out as we turned final. When my student was coming in; student was preparing to do a soft field landing. There was also active parachuting going on. When we were extremely short final the plane holding short of the runway made a call to say they were departing Runway 30 as we were coming down crossing over the threshold. They immediately started rolling toward the runway and I said 'Wait! Wait!' on the frequency. My student was starting the rounding out process and they immediately came to a stop just across the hold short line and said something about stopping on the frequency as we were touching down. I do not recall the call sign of the airplane that caused the runway incursion. We full stopped and taxied back and they departed. The aircraft was clearly not paying attention to our calls and either did not see us on final or did not look.




Synopsis: GA Flight Instructor reported an NMAC during final approach to DED non-towered airport after an aircraft crossed the runway hold short line before stopping.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
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 flying a visual approach to runway 4L at JFK. I was hand flying and captured the glideslope at 2000ft. I was slowing as we descended and stepping the flaps out. At about 1200ft I was ready to put out landing flaps. The first Officer said gear pointing out that the gear was not down. I decided we couldn't meet stabilized criteria and called for a go-around. I was caught totally by surprise. We executed a normal go around and returned to land. I was totally locked up flying the approach and lot situational awareness.


Second narrative: We were vectored to a final approach for JFK/ILS 04L after an IMC descent in weather and icing. After visual breakout we continued with a visual approach to 04L. The Captain/Pilot Flying was hand flying the aircraft and captured the GS at approximately 2000'MSL. After GS capture and initial descent the Captain called for lowering the flaps in accordance with normal procedure. At approximately 1200'MSL the Captain called for landing flaps (25). At this point I Announced 'gear' and pointed to the landing gear handle. The Captain made the immediate decision that we would not be within parameters for a stabilized approach and called for the go around. I informed the tower as such and an uneventful go-around was initiated and performed in accordance with normal procedures. We were vectored downwind for another approach and landed on JFK 04R uneventfully.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported executing a go-around on a visual approach when the landing gear was discovered to be up.
Date: 202009
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: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While capturing glideslope from above; flaps were possibly oversped briefly with the selection of flaps 3.  Flaps were moved back to flaps 2.  Aircraft was configured by the marker and stable at 1;000 feet.  Should have reduced the level of automation. The aircraft captured the alerter altitude before glide path and thrust began to increase. I spun the alerter down to glideslope intercept; pulled speed and altitude as flaps 3 was selected. Selected speed was 180 knots. I disconnected autopilot and reduced the descent. Captain notified me of the over speed after landing. This was my 5th flown leg in 6 months.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a speed deviation and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compressor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the climb out; shortly after the cut back; ECAM displayed ENG1 Compressor Vane message. I was the pilot flying and called 'my aircraft'. The Captain ran the ECAM which turns out to be crew awareness. During the climb and cruise we kept an eye on Engine 1 parameters. EPR for Engine 1 was exhibiting some variations of +/-.15. A few minutes before the beginning of descent at ZZZZZ on the Hydrr 1; the aircraft shook really hard 4 times all the while ECAM was displaying ENG 1 STALL. it all happened very fast. I called 'my aircraft'. Flight Attendant chimed in to find out what was going on and right about then EGT on engine 1 shot up to the red. ECAM displayed ENG 1 Fail. The Captain [requested priority handling] stating we wanted to go to ZZZ; then ran the ECAM checklist. He talked to F/As; passengers; company via ACARS. Captain finished the checklist with the follow up items. We made a plan on how we would proceed after landing. At this point we were downwind for Runway XX. We landed without further issues. We pulled into the hold bay so fire rescue could inspect the aircraft. When no damage was found after inspection; we taxied to the gate. Captain made a log entry in the AML.Mechanical. Looks there may have been issues with the Engine 1 compressor.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported ECAM message ENG 1 Compressor Vane followed by the aircraft shaking hard four times. Engine EGT went into the red range and ECAM message ENG 1 Fail appeared. Flight crew elected to divert to ZZZ and make a precautionary landing.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was R-side training at Sector 32. We were in the middle of a push when the scope read 'Not Receiving Surveillance Data'. I immediately called the supervisor over to find out what that meant. He didn't know and called maintenance. Then the scope froze. We couldn't update or move data blocks. The scope and URET then completely went black; like 2 TV's had just shut off. No airplanes; no flight plans; nothing. We leaned over to sector 52 (who was also quite busy at the time) and asked him to quick-look sector 32. He quick-looked our sector and we got radar back but still couldn't manipulate the data blocks. I switched to the backup channel (not knowing if I should or not) and radar was restored but the D-side was completely dead. No entries from the D-side could be made. It was a good 8-10 minutes before URET was restored though. We brought an L-side into the situation to help read flight plans off the scope and update data blocks. I really don't know what happened to be able to supply a recommendation.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller describes losing surveillance data on a scope and not getting any information back for about 8 to 10 minutes. Controller had to use another controller's scope for this time.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Crew boarded AC to begin preflight and we immediately noticed a foul; strong; and pungent smell. All 3 cabin crew members (#1; #2; and myself the #4) smelled the smell and suffered symptoms relating to toxic fume exposure. The gate agent also came on board and said it smelled like strong paint thinner to him. I (#4) went up into the airport to get away from smell and there I met with the pilots who were waiting to go down onto AC. I told them of the smell/odor and we all went down to AC. I went back on board to gather my things and we all got off AC because the smell/fumes/odor was so strong. Our AC was taken out of service and we were given another gate and AC. I was later informed that our BAD AC had an oil leak into the APU.These events and FUME ISSUES need to be taken more seriously. Even days later myself and the #1 are still not feeling well. In fact the #1 has been suffering brain fog and I have been experiencing chest tightness. If we the Flight Attendants are supposed to be the SAFETY onboard then the FAA or someone needs to be doing MORE to insure when we are exposed that we are properly assessed and cared for.......but instead we are intimidated by policies that chastise us if we are affected by these events. We are put into positions where we feel we have no choice but to keep flying or lose money. In essence we are slowly being poisoned to ill health; or possibly death. WHAT WILL HELP? How about not waiting till these AC have visible HAZE or SMOKE in the cabin to do C CHECKS! Or perhaps let's insist the C Checks be done more often than they are! Oh and let's put PALL filtration systems onboard and sensors to monitor the filters progress and quality assurance.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant reported all four cabin crew members experienced physical symptoms after exposure to fumes on the aircraft before departure.