elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Clearance was to do the SJC2 departure and after MOONY direct SJC. Programmed properly; verified by both pilots; and course line on map display showed proper course. Upon interception of course to MOONY; aircraft decided to turn direct SJC 18 miles early. The Pilot Monitoring notified Pilot Flying and ATC. ATC issued a new clearance and no further action was required. No suggestions; we caught the error and acted upon it. However the Phenom has pulled tricks like this and others on our flight crews more than any other type aircraft I have flown in nearly 30 years of flying.

Callback: Reporter stated this was a recurring issue on this SID. Garmin 3000.



Synopsis: An EMB-505 Phenom pilot reported their aircraft turned to a fix on the SID 18 miles early.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
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
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute we lost Hydraulic System 2 fluid followed by a Hydraulic 2 Low Quantity message on the EICAS.  We monitored the hydraulic quantity as it decreased to the minimum indicated value and simultaneously reviewed the QRH procedures for low quantity and possible hydraulic system failure.  We notified both Dispatch and Maintenance Control via ACARS of our situation.  Ultimately we lost the engine 2 driven hydraulic pump and then experienced System 2 hydraulic failure.  An emergency was declared with Center and we requested that Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighters (ARFF) meet us at our filed destination.  Dispatch was notified as well as destination Operations.  We were about 30 minutes out when I (Captain) briefed the Flight Attendant on our situation.  I also made a PA to inform the passengers about our situation.  I was the flying pilot and ultimately flew a normal approach and landing.  The First Officer did an excellent job in communicating with ATC; Company; as well as monitoring me and running the checklists. We were met by ARFF vehicles as requested.  After parking and securing the aircraft a significant hydraulic leak was observed coming from the belly of the aircraft.Loss of partial power to ailerons; rudder; loss of inboard brakes; loss of outboard spoilers; and loss of No. 2 thrust reverser.  Uneventful approach and landing.  Reduced breaking effectiveness and warm brakes after landing and taxi in.


Second narrative: Situation itself due to the Hydraulic System 2 failure was a threat and a distraction that increased our workload. Having only 1 reverser; less power to the ailerons; not able to use speedbrakes; and the brakes on landing were threats. Brakes on landing were quite sluggish and were heating up fast. Always monitor all systems; which is exactly what the Captain and I were doing. Any system failure can happen at any time; and I think we worked well together and made the best decisions we could to ensure a safe outcome.


Synopsis: An EMB-145 EICAS alerted HYD 2 LOW QTY followed by ENG 2 PUMP FAIL while at cruise so an emergency was declared and the flight continued to the filed destination for an uneventful emergency landing.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This flight was a trip built by scheduling to operate a 767 into ZZZ that I picked up on open time as a 757/FO (First Officer). I have previously flown a 757 into ZZZ; but was not aware of a restriction to use this only as an alternate airport for 767. I was later made aware that the [Company Ops Spec] certificate restricted 767 aircraft from using this airport as an alternate only. In the future; we as flight crew and scheduling should pay closer attention to the operations permitted in the certificate.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported having flown to destination that is not authorized in the company Ops Specs.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were being vectored from the south at 2000' MSL to intercept the LOC course for BWI Runway 10 ILS. Ceilings were ragged between about 1700'- 2000'.  We were told to maintain 2000' until LOC intercept then cleared for the ILS.  It looked to me as though we would intercept at COLUM which shows 2500' on the approach chart. The Runway 10 ILS has no DME; I relied on the CDU to indicate that we had passed COLUM. As we got VOR/LOC I descended to 1500' to intercept GS at JEANS.  Right as we got to 1500' we got an altitude alert from Approach. I don't recall the exact verbiage; but it was something like; 'Company # minimum MDA is 2000'.' Since we were approaching the FAF; we stayed at 1500' and intercepted the G/S.  That was the only fallout that we received.  Landed normally and taxied to the gate.

Callback: The reporter stated the procedure as executed that day he has flown many times and was confused by the call. In retrospect; he believes that because of low ceilings and actual IMC conditions; the Controller was busy and simply became confused possibly by the minimum vectoring altitude in that area. The crew was very confused by the event.

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


Synopsis: A B737 crew flying the BWI Runway 10 ILS descended to 1;500' inside COLUM on the localizer as per the ILS approach chart but were to told by PCT the minimum MDA altitude 2;000'. The crew could not find the basis for that statement.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes into flight; crew sent ACARS advising that both transponders had failed. Flight was near ZZZZZ intersection.  I contacted Maintenance Control to see if there was any advice they could provide; but there was not. Due to security concerns; I did not want to attempt overfly and if ATC would allow; a return back to ZZZZ would be best option. Crew concurred and flight turned around. I contacted ZZZZ and they approved the aircraft to re-enter airspace with no transponder.[The cause was] transponder failure.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported an aircraft had both of their transponders fail enroute.  After discussing with flight crew; they decided to turn around and return to the departure airport.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Furnishing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The assist handles for the L1 and R1 doors are obstructed by the new bulkhead configuration. This presents a safety hazard in the event of an evacuation.


Second narrative: The assist handles at the emergency exits on the A321 are unsafe. The handles at L1/R1 can barely be reached with the new windscreens and the assist handles at the mid cabin exits are not reachable; putting FAs in a dangerous position when opening an exit in an evacuation. The new layout allows seats in front of the mid cabin exits to hinder the escape route and block egress.The windscreens need to be redesigned to allow FA hands to be able to reach the assist handles in normal and emergency situations. The mid cabin exits also need to be changed.


Synopsis: A321 flight attendants reported the L1/L2 door assist handles are difficult to reach due to the new aircraft configuration.
Date: 202007
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
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for visual to Runway X and turned inside ZZZZZ from 4;000. I knew we were high but we had slowed and got gear out early. Squared the base to final turn outside ZZZZZ1 and continued to configure. Fully configured at 1;100; but still high on the VASI; so we decided to continue to 500 to meet stable approach criteria. Passing 500 we were on VASI and engines coming up we landed at the 1;200 mark; 8 seconds from 50 feet; and taxied in uneventfully. Upon gate arrival I pulled an approach report and noticed that we had a -1;750 vertical speed which I think happened between 2;000 and 1;000 feet. There was some ground thermal bouncing and it could have momentarily exceeded -1000 below 1;000.This was my first trip back since April and I should have given myself more room to get down and configure.Hindsight being 20/20 I think a go-around would have been a more appropriate choice; in order to give us more room to set up for the approach.


Second narrative: Close vectors; base to final Runway X. At 4;000 (higher than normal) we were cleared for a visual approach. PF started to configure; descend and intercept the LOC Runway X. We were configured prior to 1;000 feet however we were still a little high; reducing our airspeed with higher than normal descent rate; was tough but we continued to 500 feet. To me the aim point looked good with the airspeed and vertical speed returning to normal; with the engines spooled up. Short final to touchdown appeared normal. We crossed the threshold and touched in 8 sec; with normal rollout and taxi to the gate. When we shutdown at the gate; we pulled up the APRCH RPT and saw a max vert speed of 1700+ descent rate.Causal factors was accepting an approach clearance when we were higher than normal on base to final; while also being closer than normal to the field. This caused a higher descent rate on final; challenging our stable approach criteria. If necessary; configure early! In our specific situation; even lowering the landing gear earlier would have helped get us to 'stable approach criteria' sooner.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an uneventful landing from an unstable approach instead of executing go-around per standard procedures.
Date: 201708
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Distraction
Second reporter function: Enroute; Check Pilot; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon climbing through FL360 to FL380 we received an Engine-Indicating and Crew-Alerting System (EICAS) warning 'DOOR Passenger AFT OPEN'. We [reset] warning and called the Flight Attendant (FA) to determine status of door. They stated that it was closed and secure yet the top right green indicator had some white area in it that was not normal. We checked the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) for required actions. We continued to climb to assigned FL380. After leveling off at FL380 we were encountering light to moderate chop turbulence. The warning message came on again. We called again to confirm with the same answer. We requested lower as the door was still indicating unsafe. As we descended we noticed that the differential pressure was 8.3. We referenced the QRH for proper differential pressure for that altitude and determined that the aircraft was indicating a high differential pressure for the altitude we were flying. At this time you could feel the pressure on our ears and the Captain asked me if I could feel this as well. I confirmed the discomfort. The warning was still on and had unreliable pressure readings combined with physical discomfort from the pressure. The Captain stated 'I think we need to get lower and divert'. This also was confirmed by the QRH if we lost cabin pressure. I confirmed the need to divert. We descended to 14;000 ft. We continued to have pressure fluctuations during the descent. Aircraft was inspected by contract maintenance and deferred. Captain suggested we fly back at 10;000 ft to avoid issues if the pressurization failed. We did so attempting to manage pressure manually and automatically [to ZZZ1]. The aircraft continued to have increase and decreased differential pressure for the flight [to ZZZ1]. Unknown cause for event. The warnings and pressure issues may have been caused by the door open indications.


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


Synopsis: E-175 flight crew performed a precautionary landing after troubleshooting a pressurization door issue.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were passing 1;500 AGL when I heard a loud bang followed by a shudder of the aircraft. I initially thought a bird strike had occurred. Then the bang repeated several times accompanied by airframe vibration. We determined that it was the Number One Engine (N1 RPM fluctuations of +/- 15%). I elected to bring the throttle lever to idle to avoid further engine damage. Flaps and slats were retracted on schedule at approximately 3;000 FT. We declared an emergency for an engine failure and asked ATC to stand by. We ran the engine compressor stall checklist and elected to shut down the engine. I dumped approximately 55;000 LBS of fuel. We returned for a coupled auto-land ILS approach.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew experienced compressor stall on Number One Engine on initial climb. Engine was shut down; flight declared an emergency and returned to departure airport.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The ATIS indicated the wind at 140 degrees at 6 knots gusting 18 knots. Prior to departure the Tower gave the wind at 200 degrees at 9 knots gusting 19 knots and I was given the option of taking Runway XX which I accepted. I departed Runway XX and did a closed pattern; landing back on Runway XX which proceeded as normal. I then did a touch and go and came into land for the second time on Runway XX and the landing seemed to be proceeding as normal but after the main wheels touched the runway the aircraft yawed to the left and I inadvertently tried to keep the aircraft straight by using the ailerons and the aircraft tilted to the right by approximately 10 degrees and I then heard a loud noise and knew that there was a problem. I therefore vacated Runway XX. After shutdown I noticed that the propeller was damaged. I believe that as a result of the left crosswind on landing; the aircraft weathervaned into the wind and instead of using adequate rudder control to control the yaw I tried to keep the aircraft straight by incorrectly using the ailerons causing the aircraft to tip and lean right and forward to cause the propeller to touch the runway surface.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a loss of control during landing that resulted in a damaged propeller.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During review of paperwork; [the Captain] noticed the FINGR 5 arrival was filed for DFW.  Dispatcher was notified of this discrepancy and advised; this is an arrival for DAL. He queried 'do you want me to refile?' [The Captain] pointed out it was not necessary and the crew would take care of it.80 miles east of LIT under Memphis ATC; [the Captain] advised Memphis Center of the clearance to FINGR and the FINGR 5 arrival. Memphis Center stated the flight was cleared for the BRDJE 3 arrival into DFW. The conflict was resolved before a diversion from the flight plan occurred. The flight was completed without event.The purpose of this report is the possibility the flight plan was refiled. The circumstances indicate that possibility exists. Another possibility is Ft. Worth Center requested the change and confusion between Memphis Center and Ft. Worth Center controllers caused the clearance discrepancy. If the former caused the issue; the flight proceeded without an amended release.


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


Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported the filed arrival into DFW was the FINGR 5 for DAL which is 'ATC assigned only for DFW'. The Captain told the dispatcher they would correct it. After the crew checked in with Center they were cleared for the BRDJE 3 to DFW. The crew never received an amended release.