elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: All engine indications were normal during takeoff roll and at about 1;000 AGL I noticed the oil pressure gauge indicating in the yellow and not responding as I adjusted the torque to 1;500 FT\LBS. I requested a return to the airport runway with Departure and was given radar vectors back to the airport. Oil pressure indications remained in the yellow during landing and taxi back to the ramp. I contacted Flight Following and Maintenance Control to advise them of the situation.




Synopsis: A C208 pilot returned to his departure airport when the engine oil pressure dropped into the yellow after takeoff.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Upon landing at LAX [Runway] 25L Tower said to exit on G to H eastbound hold short of 25L.  We were cleared to cross 25R at B2 and contact Ground 121.75. When I called Ground said to 'taxi C behind tug. I complied with instructions and taxied straight ahead from B2 onto C behind the tug.  It appeared that the taxi area straight ahead was clear and proceeded onto C as instructed.  After reviewing chart it appears that B2 does not connect to C at that point. If may have been a non movement area; but after taxi instruction from Ground proceeded to cross to C.  No comments from Ground Control assumed this was permissible. Perhaps if the area was marked with clear signs it would be clear that it was a non movement area. Ground Control was handling many planes at once and clearly stated the wrong instruction; perhaps too much work load. Next time I will clarify instruction prior to proceeding.




Synopsis: Air taxi Captain reported following taxi instructions but noticed that the instructions were incorrect as taxiway B2 does not connect to C; where they were.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At about 3;000 feet with flaps 5 we encountered wake turbulence from an A380 in front of us. Got an overspeed of approximately 5 knots with flaps five during wake encounter. Autopilot was initially engaged after takeoff and then disengaged during wake encounter to correct for flap overspeed event. Remainder of flight was normal.


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


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported encountering wake turbulence departing in trail of an A380 that resulted in a flap overspeed.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approach vectored us west of the Silver ILS 16R localizer to provide more spacing with another aircraft. When approach turned us southeast toward an intercept of the localizer; he also gave us a descent to 8500 feet MSL. I noticed the radio altimeter winding down quicker than our rate of descent. Shortly after that we got a 'TERRAIN; TERRAIN; PULL UP' warning. We immediately performed a GPWS type go around to the MSA of our sector. We reestablished automation; told approach what had happened and were re-sequenced for the approach. Approach put us on a vector along with a descent that put us in conflict with high terrain.




Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew being vectored for an ILS 16R approach to RNO received a terrain warning. Crew performed a GPWS escape maneuver and were re-sequenced for the approach. Aircraft was vectored for a descent below the Minimum Sector Altitude.
Date: 202104
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: About an hour after flight XXXX took off out from ZZZ; Load Planning called alerting me that they had loaded extra Hazmat. According to their numbers; the aircraft was only allowed a total of 6.0 units; but 7.7 were added. I notified the crew; and the CA called me upon landing. He stated that his paperwork only showed one dangerous goods item as opposed to the three on my side.


Second narrative: One hour into my flight; Dispatch sent ACARS message to call due to incorrect Hazmat load.  Once on the ground called Dispatcher.  He informed me an additional 7 lbs of Hazmat was loaded onto my aircraft.  My final dangerous goods manifest had 1.1lbs.  He said there was an additional add without our knowledge.


Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher and a Captain reported the flight departed with hazmat documentation errors and inaccurate data.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed for a short flight to inspect the underside of my amphibious floats and to meet with the Airport Manager. After a short visit with him and his wife; my passenger and I departed for the 4 mile flight back to a lake; wanting to be landing well before sunset. I took off and departed the local pattern on a left downwind. Just a minute or so clear the pattern the lake came into view and I set up an overfly and left pattern to land. A small group of boats were together in the middle of the lake and my approach to the lake had the aircraft landing just past the group of boats. A brief good-bye on the radio departing; the very short trip back to the lake and the calculations on the approach with the boat traffic all provided just enough distraction that I missed a final gear check. At touch down; with the gear still down; the aircraft flipped almost immediately on contact with the water. My passenger and I egressed the inverted aircraft quickly and were picked up by a nearby pontoon boat just as fast. I had a minor facial injury and my passenger was uninjured.I had given a short safety brief to my passenger concerning the harness and points of reference; let him know where the PFD's were located but I failed to brief him on the three different means of gear position indication and should have asked for his involvement with the checks along with me.




Synopsis: Seaplane pilot reported leaving the gear down while landing. On gear contact with the water; the aircraft flipped onto its back. The occupants evacuated and were largely unharmed.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: British Aerospace Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in the Local Control position.   Aircraft Y was in the VFR traffic pattern doing touch and goes/low approaches.   Aircraft X was inbound on a visual approach to Runway 23L.  Aircraft Y was issued a go around due to runway separation on a prior aircraft not involved in this event.  On the go Aircraft Y was given right closed traffic and told to extend his download.  Aircraft Y declared minimum fuel at this time.  Traffic to follow on Aircraft X was given to Aircraft Y to follow.  Aircraft X was on a 3 or 4 mile final at this time.  Aircraft Y flew a mile downwind and then declared emergency fuel.  Aircraft X was in a critical phase of flight short final and I allowed him to land but advised him minimal time on the runway and that the aircraft behind him must land.  Aircraft Y was told to follow Aircraft X and cleared to land.  Aircraft Y turned directly behind Aircraft X.  Aircraft X was given another expedite request off of the runway.  Aircraft X was turning off at the A4 intersection as Aircraft Y crossed the landing threshold. The time from the declaration of minimum fuel to emergency fuel was very short.  The traffic to follow would not require Aircraft Y any undue delay.  Had emergency fuel been called earlier then the citation could have been sent around before his critical phase of flight; allowing the then priority emergency aircraft a clean runway.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported a runway incursion involving a Citation and a UAV.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared direct SAILZ and to descend and maintain 3;000 FT. We were LNAV/VNAV established and had 3;000 FT set in Altitude window and 3;000 FT restriction set in CDU for SAILZ. We initiated a descent to 3;000 FT and the pilot not flying verified it. We did not notice the aircraft level off at 3;300 FT. ATC queried our altitude we admitted 3;300 FT and descended to 3;000 FT and were established prior to the fix. After landing; the Captain of another flight came over to us. He was following us in an -800 with the same clearance and reported to us his aircraft level led off at 3;300 FT too. We suspect an -800 software issue.

Callback: The reporter stated they were flying the PANGG 1 RNAV arrival and that the aircraft was level; (forgot what altitude) with LNAV/VNAV engaged. When the descent to 3;000 FT was issued; he simply selected ALT INTV to initiate the descent. He was not directly looking at the FMA during the level off but does remember when ATC called about the 3;300 FT level off altitude; the FMA indicated ALT HLD and they were level.

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


Synopsis: After selecting ALT INTV to initiate a descent to the MDW PANGG1 RNAV SAILZ waypoint; a B737-800 leveled at 3;300 FT with the FMA indicating ALT HLD but 3;000 FT set in both the MCP and FMC. ATC alerted the crew about the error.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was written up for a right main strut leak. I took the call with a co-worker who acted the inspector for the task. We performed the maintenance required following the Maintenance Manual.I have since learned that a brake line failure or fitting failed causing a brake to lock-up a few flights later and may be related to the maintenance I performed that night. While I don't recall the specifics of the task I do recall the operational and leak checks related to the strut and brake installation.As of right now I'm unsure of how this could have happened. I do my best to check and double-check my work. Since the failure occurred in the scope of my work I can't help but feel responsible.


Second narrative: Another mechanic and I went to an aircraft that had the right strut leaking hydraulic fluid. We removed the lower half of the strut; replaced the bad seals; reinstalled the lower half of the strut and put everything back together. Including the brakes and tires; we installed all the hydraulic lines; checked for security of fittings on the brakes; and checked the brakes for operation and leaks. The brakes had no leaks and the brakes worked normal; so after that we serviced the strut with 5606 and nitrogen; did our paper work and signed it off an went back to home base. I was notified later; that a couple days ago that one of the brakes locked up and they found one of quick disconnect fittings had backed off causing the brake to lock up.I do not know why it happened. I feel that we did not do anything wrong on the maintenance that we did; maybe the quick disconnect were getting weak and worked its way loose.Maybe the quick disconnect fittings should be inspected and replaced if bad during C checks.


Synopsis: The brakes locked up when landing because a hydraulic line failed. Two days prior maintenance was accomplished on the same landing gear and brake system.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had multiple altitude and speed changes on the ZPLYN 3 RNAV Arrival into DEN that made it challenging to comply with all the changes successfully but we did and were finally cleared the RNAV Z Runway 17 R Approach. Upon being cleared the approach; we closed out the discontinuity from the arrival and brought up the points on the approach into the FMC. We sequenced QWIKE (the IAF) and then were given a clearance to 'Cancel approach clearance; descend maintain 9000 ft.'  We changed the altitude on the MCP (Mode Control Panel) and began the leg at STAAM when ATC called and gave us a 350 heading and said that she expected us to continue on the downwind. We should have been given course guidance but weren't. We discussed it briefly between ourselves on the flight deck and decided she must have meant for us to stay on the LNAV track for the approach so we did so; but the Controller wanted us to stay on a northerly vector from the arrival. Once we were cleared the approach there was no easy way for us to get the arrival back in the FMC in a safe and timely manner. There comes a point on these RNAV arrivals/approaches when we can no longer program clearances fast enough and just need altitudes and headings.




Synopsis: Pilot reported confusion between what they did and what the Controller expected them to do on an RNAV arrival.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Several hours after sunset; I was operating a helicopter on an NVG currency training flight.  On initial approach to my destination airport at approximately 5.2 NM east of the airport; I observed an UAS operating at my altitude and within 100 feet of my aircraft.  The UAS had LED red and blue lighting which was invisible under NVG and was only noticed when it passed into my peripheral vision.  I took immediate evasive action by turning away and climbing in altitude.  I attempted to locate the operator of the UAS and had local police patrol unit respond to the area to assist but we were unable to locate the operator.  After my initial evasive action; the operator dropped the UAS toward the ground and extinguished its lighting system.  After about 5 minutes; the UAS was once again observed at my altitude and with its lighting system on.  The operator was still unable to be located and contacted.  The incident was documented in a Police incident report and the control tower was contacted the following day.




Synopsis: A helicopter pilot on a night vision training flight detected a UAS within 75 feet of his aircraft. The UAS operator turn its lights off but as the helicopter was searching the UAS returned for a second brazen encounter.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Wheel
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approximately 20 minutes after Aircraft X departed; the Ramp Supervisor brought a part to Maintenance Lead Tech and stated they found on ground at gate in the area around nose of aircraft. After seeing the part I called Maintenance Control. I informed him that I had changed the left nose tire and wheel assembly earlier that night and that this part could possibly be from that work. [I] asked him to stop the aircraft when it lands in ZZZ1. [I] looked up part number and gave to him in case needed. All work was performed per maintenance manual. Waiting to hear outcome of inspection in ZZZ1. If part that was found here in ZZZ is indeed missing. Bushing/support is a very loose fit inside the nose wheel axle may need to pin or some sort of way to prevent it from falling out or getting stuck inside of axle nut socket with grease.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported that an A320 part was found in the area where maintenance had replaced the nose wheel.